Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Tottenham and District Gas Bill [Lords].
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords].
Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords].
Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords].
Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords].
Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill.

Bill to be read a Second Time Tomorrow.

Great Western Railway (Swansea North Dock Abandonment) Bill,

Weaver Navigation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Warwick Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Accrington Corporation Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Cleethorpes Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Richmond) (Surrey) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of schools for mentally or physically defective children in Wales and Monmouthshire, where they are situated, and the aggregate number of children attending them in 1910, 1920 and 1928, respectively?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the reply to this question is statistical in character, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

There are at present in Wales and Monmouthshire seven certified schools for mentally defective children and five certified schools for physically defective children. The schools are situated as follow:—

Mentally Defective.

Denbighshire: Wrexham.
Glamorganshire:
Aberdare.
Barry.
Cardiff.
Mountain Ash.
Pontypridd.
Rhondda.

Physically Defective.

Anglesey: Penhesgyn (Sanatorium School).
Denbighshire: Llangwyfan (Hospital School).

Glamorganshire:

Aberdare (Open-Air Day School).
Cardiff (Open-Air Day School).
Cardiff (Hospital School).

In addition, the Board have just certified five sanatorium schools provided by

1909–10.
1919–20.
1926–27.



Number of Schools.
Average number of children on registers during the year.
Number of Schools.
Average number of children on registers during the year.
Number of Schools.
Average number of children on registers during the year.


Schools for Mentally defective Children.
4
79
5
142
7
218


Schools for Physically Defective Children.
—
—
1
95
4
182

WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has obtained the names of those schools referred to on page 71 of Sir George Newman's Report on the Health of the School Child for the year 1925 as being entirely without any water supply; and what steps he has taken to require a water supply to he provided in them?

Lord E. PERCY: I have obtained the names of the Nottinghamshire and Herefordshire schools referred to. A number of the schools are included in the Black List survey, and in some cases a water supply has now been laid on. In the large majority of the cases a supply of water, though not actually laid on to the school, is available in the immediate vicinity, often in adjoining premises, and there are very few cases where water has to be carried from any distance. The right hon. Member will, moreover, realise that the water supply at a village school very frequently depends upon the supply available for the village generally and cannot be dealt with by the school authorities as a separate problem.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the Noble Lord consider the question of refusing a grant to a school where it is possible to place water, but where no water is placed?

the King Edward VII Welsh National Memorial Association and situated in Breconshire (two schools), Carmarthen-shire, Pembrokeshire and Cardiff. The average numbers of children on the registers of schools for mentally defective and physically defective children in Wales and Monmouthshire in 1909–10, 1919–20 and 1926–27 (the latest date for which complete returns are available) were as follow:—

Lord E. PERCY: Where the water can be placed there, and is not placed there, I propose to see, so far as possible, that the water is placed there, but there is no call to talk about withdrawal of grant.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the Noble Lord aware that this has been going on for very many years and that the children are suffering all the while?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, I know, but for very many years we did not have a Black List of schools, whereas now we have got one.

Mr. WELLOCK: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any steps have been taken by the Board to secure the supply of hot water in public elementary schools, more especially in infant departments; and what is the Board's policy in the matter?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board fully recognise the desirability of providing a supply of hot water, especially in infants' schools, and it is their practice to suggest that it should he provided in all cases where it appears reasonably practicable to do so.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the Noble Lord not enforce it with regard to all new schools?

Lord E. PERCY: Where it is reasonably practicable to do so, and in my reply to the hon. Member's question I painted out the difficulties where water is not laid on. You cannot lay down any general rule in the matter.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the Noble Lord realise that there is a great number of schools where there is hot water for heating purposes, but no hot wafer for washing purposes, and will he suggest to the local education authorities that it is desirable to have hot water for washing purposes where it is so easily available?

Lord E. PERCY: As I have said, that is precisely what I am suggesting.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the Noble Lord not realise that a good supply of pure water is of very great importance and fundamental to the health of the children?

INSPECTORATE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is proposed to cut down the staff of inspectors for the coming year from 322 to 309; what are the grades of the inspectors so discharged; and to what limit do the Board propose to carry out this process?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board's inspectorate is being re-organised, and it is proposed that 13 posts, which are at present vacant, should not be filled during the current financial year. This reduction is experimental, and I cannot at this stage say whether any further reduction is likely. No inspectors of any grade have been discharged.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any steps have been taken by the Board to encourage the provision of nursery schools; and what is the Board's policy in this respect?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board's policy in this as in other matters is that laid down three years ago in Circular 1358, i.e.,
to ask all local authorities to consider the more immediate needs of their areas in all grades of education and to formulate programmes of action covering a definite period.
Local authorities are now engaged in carrying out programmes, formulated in accordance with this policy and covering the three years 1927–30. This policy is based on the principle that each local authority is best able to judge the relative urgency of different proposals for educational development in its own area and that pressure from the Board in favour of particular proposals is more likely to retard educational development than to advance it. Since last year the Board have approved proposals for three new nursery schools.

HIGHER EDUCATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board will publish, as a White Paper or in another form, a Return showing for each area the numbers of pupils who left public elementary schools in 1926–27 for places of full-time further education?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member will find this information in the Board's official List 45, a copy of which I am sending him.

THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS REGISTRATION ACT.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the principal registration authorities in Great Britain have notified him of their support of the resolution passed by the London County Council on 27th February, 1927, asking that the Theatrical Employers Registration Act of 1925 should be amended on the lines identical with the powers of control now possessed by the Linden County Council over threatrical agents; and whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in operating this Act and the fact that neither the registration authorities nor the police are empowered to enforce its penal provisions, he will consider the introduction of an amending Act which will enable the registration authorities, where they are justified, to incur the necessary expenditure in undertaking proceedings under that Act?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson - Hicks): Seven registration authorities under the Theatrical Em-
ployers Registration Act, 1925, have written to the Home Office in support of the resolutions passed by the London County Council in February, 1927, regarding the amendment of the Act. I understand that steps are being taken to introduce in another place a Bill dealing with this matter, and if there is no opposition I hope that it may be possible to secure its passage.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of those authorities if I give him notice?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes.

WHIST DRIVES.

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the position arising out of a recent decision as to the legality of whist drives being held for prizes; and can he make a statement?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that no action with regard to whist drives has been taken since the judgment in 1912 until the present day, he will continue the policy of his predecessors and allow this harmless amusement to continue?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The decision referred to is only one of a series of judicial decisions given at intervals during the last 20 years by which individual whist drives held under particular conditions have been declared unlawful. I have gone carefully into the history of the matter in the Home Office records and find that certain instructions were issued to the Metropolitan Police by my predecessors when they found themselves confronted by a similar situation. Those instructions have never been modified, were confirmed by me in 1925, and I find myself still in complete agreement with them. I will quote from instructions given on the 20th March, 1913:
Proceedings are not to be instituted by the police, except when there is reason to believe that a whist drive—whether on the partner system or not—is a cloak for gambling of a serious kind or for profit making out of gambling";
and again on the 30th March, 1921:
I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that in his opinion whist drives as at present ordinarily conducted
in public halls are an innocent form of amusement and are free from the essential element of the mischief which accompanies gambling. Though it is possible that they may develop in some direction which may make them really mischievous, police action for their suppression does not at present appear to be called for. It appears also to him very difficult—if nut impossible—to draw a sound distinction from a police point of view according to the amount expended by the promoters in prizes; and he thinks that the police should not interfere unless they have reason to think that actual harm is being done.
I believe the House will share my view that it is better that the matter should be dealt with on these lines rather than by attempting an amendment of the law which would be highly controversial and would almost inevitably open up the question of gaming in all its aspects. The instructions which I have quoted were issued only to the Metropolitan Police, and no difficulty appears to have arisen in the area of that force. I have no jurisdiction in a matter of this kind over other forces, but if the view embodied in the instructions from which I have quoted commends itself to this House, I have no doubt that due note will be taken of it by the appropriate authorities and that they will govern their future action accordingly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the whole position has been altered very radically, from an administrative point of view, by the Betting Duty imposed two years ago? Surely that will sway him and his officials in carrying out the present theoretical law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not think the Belting Duty has anything whatever to do with it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But, surely, if gaming was so illegal before the Betting Duty was instituted, the recognition of gaming by this Government alters the situation?

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered circularising the rest of the authorities in England with a copy of his opinion?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I say. I have no authority over the other forces, but I think, if the answer which I have given and which will probably receive the approval of the House, is reported at length, other forces will take note of it.

UNSUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a lady who was recently charged at Bow Street with being a common prostitute, but was able to bring medical evidence which caused the magistrate to stop the case and discharge her, allowing her the cost of the doctor's fees; under which Act she was charged; and whether, in view of the nature of the case and the fact that he has made an ex gratia grant of £500 from the Metropolitan Police Fund to Major Graham Bell Murray to compensate him for being wrongfully charged with being drunk and disorderly, he will also consider making a grant to this lady to compensate her for being wrongfully charged with being a common prostitute?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been drawn to the case. On inquiry I find that she was charged under Section 54, paragraph 11, of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. There is nothing either in the nature of the case or in the fact that a grant has been made, in different circumstances, to another person to raise any question of a grant in this case. I am informed that the magistrate, in allowing 42s. costs, said, "In doing so I am not making any reflection on the police. It must not be taken that I am doing that."

Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it much more serious for a working girl to be called a prostitute than for a gentleman to be accused of being drunk?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a distinction upon which I do not think I am called upon to express an opinion. I quite realise that there was a mistake made in this case, but it is the invariable rule that no compensation is allowed unless there are very special circumstances which the Minister thinks entitle a person to receive compensation. I am not going to say more about this case than that I have considered it, and I do not think it a case for compensation.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Home Secretary think there is such a thing as a class war?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I do not.

Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is extremely difficult for this girl to get fresh employment anywhere, and will he reconsider that point?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not think there is anything in the nature of this case which would militate against her getting employment. She was honourably discharged from the charge made against her, and, if I may respectfully say so, the less her name is dragged into the case, the better.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does it not give this girl a lot of cheap advertisement? [HON. MEMBERS "Shame!"]

Mr. THURTLE: Are we to understand from the Home Secretary's reply that the question as to whether or not compensation is paid depends on the social status of the victim?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; and I never sad anything at all which would lead to such a conclusion.

Mr. CHARLETON: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether the sub-committee of the Committee on Street Offences has submitted its Report on the case of Major Bell Murray in January; arid, if so, can he explain the delay in publishing the findings of this Committee and the decision of the Government thereon?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Ti e Report of the Sub-Committee reached the Home Office, not in January, but on the 5th March. It was communicated to the Commissioner of Police on the 6th March for the appropriate disciplinary action. Certain questions of procedure then arose in view of the fact that the Discipline Code for the Metropolitan Police, by which the Commissioner is bound, makes no specific provision for a case such as this, where there has been an antecedent extrajudicial investigation. Those questions were settled in conference between the Commissioner and the Home Office, and on the 4th April the Commissioner proceeded to formulate charges against Police Constable Thurston. The Commissioner's report of the result of those disciplinary proceedings reached my right hon. Friend on the 30th April. He would then have been in a position, in the ordinary course, to dispose of the out-
standing matters, which were the question of the publication of the findings of the Sub-Committee and the question of an ex gratia grant to Major Bell Murray. By this time, however, what has become known as the Hyde Park case had arisen, and, as that case bore certain points of resemblance to the case of Major Bell Murray, my right hon. Friend decided deliberately that it would be right to await developments in that case before coming to a final decision. His decision was taken as soon as the issues in the Hyde Park case had become clarified as the result of proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. DAY: Has a copy of the Report been sent to Major Murray himself?

Captain MARGESSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (PEDESTRIANS).

Mr. ALBERY: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions so that the Metropolitan police, whilst continuing their efforts to facilitate motor traffic in congested areas, shall not lose sight of the rights and needs of pedestrian traffic, especially, as regards the crossing of thoroughfares; and will he consider the issuing of instructions that wheeled traffic shall not be allowed to halt actually on those crossings indicated for pedestrian use?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Instructions on both points are contained in the General Orders of the Metropolitan Police and have been reinforced from time to time by special memoranda. I think, too, that the instructions are generally observed.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (EXCESSIVE NOISE).

Sir R. THOMAS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were prosecuted for excessive noise during the last six months of 1927, and up to the present date this year?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. The number of prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police District for excessive noise during the last six
months of 1927 was 6,622 and from 1st January to 30th April, 1928, inclusive, was 4,150.

CORONERS' DIRECTIONS.

Mr. MALONE: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the instruction given by the coroner to the jury at the inquest on a recent case where death was found to have been due to poisoning, namely, that they must name some person as having administered the poison in order that there might be further inquiry, and in view of the fact that another coroner gave a completely contrary instruction to the jury in similar circumstances, so that an open verdict was returned, he will consider the introduction of a Measure to define more clearly the instructions to coroners for advising juries in eases of this sort?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would be wrong for me to comment on the discharge by any judicial officer of his judicial functions, but I am bound to say that I do not think that the effect of the coroner's directions is correctly stated in the first part of the question. In any case I see no reason as at present advised for considering any amendment of the law on this point.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 18.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. F. E. Huxtable, of Tiverton (Claim No. C.P. 116,765/27), who was permitted to become a voluntary contributor to National Health Insurance in January 192), and has paid contributions under the National Health Insurance Acts and under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; whether he is aware that this man's claim to an old age pension has been rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to become a voluntary contributor; and what action he proposes to take to fulfil the implied contract that was entered into by the acceptance of Mr. Huxtable's contributions?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I am aware of the circumstances mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. Mr. Huxtable appealed to
Referees appointed under the Contributory Pensions Act who, after full consideration, dismissed his appeal, holding that the statutory conditions for the award of a pension were not satisfied, and that his acceptance by an Approved Society could not override the statutory provisions. The decision of the Referees is final and conclusive, and it is not open to me to take further action, except on the presentation of new facts. I am advised that there is no question of contract as between Mr. Huxtable and my Department.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Would not any private company behaving in the way that the Government have behaved be liable before the law; and will not the right hon. Gentleman give this poor old man some compensation after taking his money in this way?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Department is not in the position of a private company.

Mr. AMMON: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that an old age pensioner under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act cannot continue to draw pension in the event of taking up residence in the Channel Islands, he will consider an amendment of the Act to extend its operation to the Channel Islands?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If a scheme of pensions similar to that embodied in the Contributory Pensions Act were established in the Channel Islands, reciprocal arrangements could be made which would allow of the payment of pension to a person who changed his residence from one country to the other, but, in the absence of reciprocal arrangements, I am afraid it is not possible to make the provision suggested by the hon. Member.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if the Channel Islands wish to have this Act, they are perfectly competent to bring it in, and carry it through?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUALS (DIETARY).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 20.
asked the Minister of Health the reasons of public
interest which led him to refuse a request from the North-Western Joint Vagrancy Committee that he should consent to their providing the regular able-bodied inmates' diet to casuals where considered desirable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Member for Bother Valley (Mr. Grundy) on the 5th instant.

Mr. SHEPHERD: In view of the under-nourishment caused by the insufficiency of food and lack of variety, will not the right hon. Gentleman give his-sanction in cases where boards wish to give casuals the same diet at midday as are given to the inmates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the dietary which is contemplated by the Order is sufficient to provide adequate nourishment for men in normal health.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the fact that men put to work need more food than those discharged without being set to work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that it is sufficient.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would go and try himself.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult workhouse masters, who will grove that under-nourishment is due to the lack of variety in the diet, and that skin diseases which are prevalent ere also clue to it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see how workhouse masters can prove that.

Mr. SHEPHERD: They are in direct contact with them.

RELIEF, SCOTLAND.

Mr. GARDNER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the number of persons in receipt of parish relief in Scotland on 31st December last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): No figures are available for the 31st December, 1927. As at the 15th January, 192S, however, there were (exclusive of casuals) 240,392 persons in receipt of relief in Scot-
land. This figure includes all classes of poor, 105,290 being destitute able-bodied unemployed. The number of lunatic poor at the 15th January, 1928, cannot be stated separately but the number of this class at 15th May, 1927, was 18,322 and the figure does not vary to any appreciable degree from year to year.

Mr. ERSKINE: Can the Secretary of State for Scotland say how many of these people who were relieved were Irish and how many were Scottish?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

READING CASUAL WARD.

Mr. SHEPHERD (for Mr. WALTER BAKER): 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that casuals, spending the night in Reading Casual Ward, have to take off the shirts provided for them and leave them in their bunks and, stark naked, traverse a long passage to the room in which their clothes are placed overnight; and whether he will make Regulations to ensure the discontinuance of this practice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the hon. Member has been misinformed. Dressing gowns are provided for the use of the casuals in passing through this corridor, but in practice many prefer not to use the dressing gowns. The corridor is about 12 yards long and is adequately heated. I see no reason for action on my part.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason they do not like using the garments is that they generally have other inhabitants?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 21.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the effect of the discontinuance of the State grant in aid of medical benefit to aged friendly society members; and whether, in view of the comparatively small amount involved, he will give the matter further consideration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of the grant in question was less than £1,000 in 1926 and was rapidly diminishing. The money had to be dis-
tributed amongst any of the 7,000 approved societies and branches which had any members who were permanently disabled on the 15th July, 1912, and the average amount payable to any society or branch was less than 10s. The distribution of these trifling sums involved considerable work on the part of the societies concerned and of my Department, the cost of which far exceeded the total sum to be distributed. In these circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the continuance of the grant is not justified. This decision has been communicated to the Consultative Council, on which approved societies of all types are represented, and has received their concurrence.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

VACCINATION.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into vaccination, and will this Report be available for Members of this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This Report will be published shortly as a Command Paper.

MILK SUPPLIES.

Dr. DAVIES: 26.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many people imagine that grade A milk is superior in quality to certified milk; and will he consider the advisability of so altering the nomenclature for the various kinds of milk that the public can easily understand their relative order of merit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) on the 8th March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

FOOD ADULTERATION (PROSECUTIONS).

Dr. DAVIES: 27.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector of many local authorities do not appreciate the fact that they are entitled to procure samples of food and drugs under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts for analysis and, if found to he adulterated,
prosecute the offender, although these officers may not be the usual authority for the administration of these Acts in their area; and will he at some convenient time draw the attention of all local authorities to their powers in this respect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (INSPECTORATE).

Mr. HASLAM: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to merge the men and women inspectors of the national health insurance inspectorate and to re-cast the duties of the men and women inspectors on a common basis; and whether the proposed changes involve additional expenditure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have decided to recast the duties of the men and women national health insurance inspectors on a common basis, retaining for the present separate seniority lists for men and women. These changes will not involve any additional expenditure.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many ex-Service men are at present on the books of the Joint Substitution Board?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The total recorded on 1st June, 1928, was 615.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for the continued occurrence of cases in which women are being put into posts of ex-Service men who have been discharged on account of redundancy or in which women are being retained in posts which could he equally well filled by ex-Service men; and whether he will take immediate steps to prevent the recurrence of such cases and to ensure that the pledges given to ex-Service civil servants are fulfilled in letter and in spirit?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of any cases in which women are being put into posts of ex-Service men who have been discharged on account of redundancy or that there is any foundation for the suggestion made in the last part of the question that the pledges given to ex-Service men are being broken in any way. As regards the temporary women retained in the Civil Service the work on which they are employed is of the kind accepted by the Southborough Committee as peculiarly appropriate to or normally performed by women. There is, therefore, no scope for their substitution by ex-Service men.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that there are no cases in the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Health in which women are taking the place of discharged ex-service men?

Mr. SAMUEL: I could not say off-hand. I should have to ask the Departments.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is there any truth in the statement which has been made that pledges were given to the women, many of whom would have been discharged in the ordinary course of events, that they should be retained for another year, and does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that means transferring work to the women and taking it away from a number of ex-service men?

Mr. SAMUEL: So far as I know, the recommendations of the Southborough Committee have been followed.

Sir F. HALL: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but is there any truth in the statement that a pledge was given to women that they should have another 12 months?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, I will try to answer it. I cannot tell him off-hand.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a great source of grievance amongst ex-service men, and will he make further inquiry?

Mr. SAMUEL: I will look into any cases brought to my attention.

Captain FRASER: Is it not a fact that young persons have been taken into the Civil Service while, concurrently, ex-service men have been dismissed, and that even if they have not taken the same jobs they are doing similar work?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter arising out of this question, and it should be put on the Paper.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (OVERTIME).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in a number of Employment Exchanges a considerable amount of overtime is being worked; and whether he will take steps to provide that where overtime exceeding 44 hours in any week is being worked redundant ex-service temporary clerks shall be engaged instead of causing the existing staff to work overtime?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on this subject on 22nd May to the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison). The Department always endeavours, where there is extra work, to engage additional temporary clerks rather than resort to overtime. This, however, is not always practicable.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when overtime is worked it involves an officer of higher rank staying also, whereas if temporary redundant clerks were taken on the work could be carried on by the higher officers as part of their ordinary duties?

Captain MARGESSON: My answer shows that it is the policy of the Department, where possible, to do that, but it is not always practicable.

NEW SILVER COINAGE.

Major KENYON-SLANEY: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is responsible for the design of the new coinage; what is the method adopted with regard to the approval of the design; and the amount of the new coinage ordered to be minted?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): A number of alternative designs were submitted by numismatic artists of high standing and
were considered with great care by the Standing Committee which advises the Master of the Mint on such questions. The designs selected were by Mr. George Kruger Gray and were recommended by me to His Majesty for approval. A full account of the matter will be found in the Report of the Royal Mint for 1926, pages 11–13. All silver coins struck in the future will bear the new designs until such time as any alteration may be approved; the amount so struck will depend upon general requirements.

Mr. HARRIS: Who is Mr. George Kruger Gray? What are his qualifications?

Mr. CHURCHILL: T must ask for notice of that question in order that I may do full justice to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

BETTING DUTY (SWEEPSTAKES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the probable benefit to the Exchequer, he will consider the question of the inclusion of sweepstakes in the Betting Duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The suggestion which has been made before has been noted, but this does not mean that it will be adopted.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Ts it not a fact that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and why turn down good money for the Exchequer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really cannot go into this difficult ornithological question of the goose and the gander.

Mr. DAY: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it has been noted, has it received his personal consideration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, indeed, Sir.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that enormous sums are being paid out to-day as the result of sweepstakes, and is there any reason why they should not pay tax, the same as other betting transactions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are many occasions in financial Debates for ventilating these matters.

MECHANICAL LIGHTERS DUTY.

Mr. FENBY: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duty of 6d. on mechanical lighters is to be applicable to all lighters irrespective of cost?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the affirmative, but lighters to be used as parts of miners' lamps are exempt from duty.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: If that be the case, will the Chancellor see that proper instructions are given to those Customs Officers, who have been endeavouring to collect the duty on mechanical lighters attached to miners' safety lamps?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall have to have evidence before accepting that fact, but in any case, I have stated what is the law.

INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Sir BASIL PETO: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total amount of Laconic Tax paid by retail businesses which have been acquired by the co-operative organisations in the last three financial years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am unable to give this information.

Sir B. PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think his Department should be aware of the amount of revenue which is gradually slipping away from him in this insidious manner year by year, leaving more burdens to be borne by those who are liable to pay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am bound to say that I have reached the conclusion that the laborious inquisition which would be necessary in these cases and the amount of clerical work which would be required would not be justified by the issue involved.

Sir F. HALL: If the names of the various businesses are given to the right hon. Gentleman, will it not be possible, simply by reference to the books, to see how much Income Tax has been paid? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to supply the information if specific businesses are given to him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter has been discussed on a great many occasions, and I am always ready to debate it in
the House. Some time ago I produced a very elaborate answer upon the whole question of the taxation of co-operative societies, and I have not yet been confronted with any arguments which overturn that answer.

Sir F. HALL: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The supplementary question; do not raise the merits of the question, but merely ask for the same information.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a great many members of this party are not of the same opinion as he holds on this question?

Sir B. PETO: I do not wish to raise any question of opinion. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has not received from the National Traders' Defence Association a statement which traverses altogether the statement to which he referred in his answer, namely, that there was only £100,000 loss of revenue, and that the real loss of revenue is at least £400,000 or £500,000?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only say that I am willing to discuss this matter on any opportunity which is afforded in debate. I approached this question with a complete readiness to find that there was a serious leakage of revenue, as indeed it might appear from the statements made, but I was led to the conclusion which I have announced on several occasions as the result of a very careful study of the position.

OILS IMPORT DUTY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has received a resolution, passed unanimously by the National Federation of Paint, Colour, and Varnish Manufacturers of the United Kingdom, protesting against the turpentine duties as imposing burdens on the paint and varnish industry; if he is aware that turpentine is a vegetable spirit which costs three times as much to produce as white spirit and can only he considered a competitior of white spirit in that it s use at considerably increased cost results in the production of paint and varnish of higher quality; that turpentine cannot in any circumstances be produced in Great Britain and is in-
capable of use in internal combustion engines; and whether, in these circumstances, he will favourably consider exempting turpentine used in the manufacture of paint and varnish from duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A resolution such as is mentioned in the first part of the Question and containing the statements made in the second and third parts, has been received. As regards the fourth part, I regret that I cannot see my way to give the exemption suggested.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman originally said it was impossible to exempt turpentine, he also said the same thing about paraffin, and, in view of the rebate in the case, of paraffin, does he not think the time has come to exempt this productive material used by manufacturers in very important trades?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt raise the point in the discussions on the Petrol Duty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that if I can persuade him to reconsider this matter before the discussions come on I shall have a far better chance of persuading him then?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot. It would hardly be courteous to the House for me to anticipate the course of the debates in Committee.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been called to the hardship arising in connection with Clause 2 (4) (a) of the Finance Bill in the case of firms which carry on the double business of garage agents and omnibus proprietors when the aggregate of both stocks of petrol exceeds 10,000 gallons; and whether he will instruct the custom and excise officials to discriminate for purposes of duty between the two stocks, and so avoid unfair competition on the part of firms acting only as garage agents.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There does not appear to be any ground for such a discrimination as is suggested in the last part of the Question. Under the Clause,
any petrol used between 25th April and 8th May by the firm in whose stock it was on the former date is excluded in determining whether that firm's stock exceeded 10,000 gallons and therefore was liable to duty. The combination of a garage and an omnibus business could thus only affect the firm's liability to duty in what I understand to be the unlikely event of its holding more than a fortnight's stock on account of its omnibus business.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. THURTLE: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been lost to the Exchequer in the last three years as a result of repayment in error of Excess Profits Duty to taxpayers over and above the amount of such repayment as was actually due?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The amounts which have been ascertained in the last three years to have been lost to the Exchequer as a result of repayment in error of Excess Profits Duty to taxpayers over and above the amount of any such repayment as was actually due, are as follow:


Year
£


1925–26
8,000


1926–27
Nil.


1927–28
Nil.


The amount given for the year 1925–26 represents the sum lost in the case referred to in the 1926 Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the state of the public finances, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Inland Revenue officials to exercise more care in order to avoid losses of this character?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures I have given show that the care which is used is so adequate as to produce an almost perfect result.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

RATING RELIEF.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLER: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated figure of the total contribution which will be payable by the Exchequer in relief of the rates on agricultural land and buildings after the passing of the Rating Bill; what would be the estimated cost of giving re-
lief to agricultural land and buildings on the same basis as that proposed for industrial and transport undertakings, namely, 75 per cent, of the total rate payable on the present assessments; and, if no estimate can yet be given, will he state which of these two figures would be the greater?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total direct relief which will accrue to the agricultural industry from the rating proposals of the Government is estimated at roughly £5,000,000 per annum for Great Britain. This takes no account of the reduction of freights. I am unable to give a figure for the alternative basis of relief suggested by my hon. Friend. In any case, it would be inconsistent with the Government proposals which provide that the dwelling of the manufacturer and the farmer alike shall continue fully rateable.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Apart from generalisations, can the right hon. Gentleman justify this gift of £5,000,000 to agriculture?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not at Question Time.

BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the capital issued to beet-sugar factories in this country is of British origin?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am informed that the total capital, including debentures, of the factories in operation last season was about £7,830,000, of which £1,725,000 was believed to be foreign. The figures of foreign-held capital can only be approximate, as a proportion of the shares in beet-sugar factories change hands from time to time in the market.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the Minister of Agriculture say why this Amsterdam company should have its pockets filled by the British Treasury?

Mr. GUINNESS: I very much doubt whether they have, seeing the great shyness which British investors have recently shown in investing in new ventures to produce British sugar.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether all
this foreign capital will derive benefit under the new rating proposals suggested by the Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: Any factory which complies with the conditions will benefit, and it is quite proper that it should benefit.

OPEN SPACES AND PLAYING FIELDS (GRANTS).

Mr. MALONE: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the request from the National Playing Fields Association for an allocation of 1 per cent. of the Road Fund to a fund to provide more open spaces and playing fields for the people; and whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not received such a proposal, but in any case it is not one that I could entertain, having regard to the purposes for which the Road Fund was established.

FIGHTING FORCES (MEAT SUPPLIES).

Mr. ALBERY: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that home-killed meat can be supplied to the Army and Air Force on two days a week at a cost of £130,000, he is prepared to approve of the reconsideration of this question in this restricted form in view of the encouragement it would give to the British farming industry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The modification introduced in this question does not enable me to depart from the decision conveyed to my hon. Friend by the Financial Secretary on the 13th February.

BULGARIA (REPARATION PAYMENTS).

Mr. RILEY: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inter-Allied Commission at Sofia has yet decided what recommendation to make to the Reparation Commission, in view of the recent earthquake in Bulgaria, regarding the remission of reparation payments by Bulgaria?

Mr. SAMUEL: According to the most recent information in my possession the
Inter-Allied Commission hopes shortly to decide what recommendation to make to the Reparation Commission, but has not yet reached a decision.

OFFICIAL REPORT (STANDING COMMITTEES).

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: 44.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the issue of bound volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of Standing Committees has been discontinued; and, if so, by whose authority?

Mr. SAMUEL: The issue of bound volumes of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of Standing Committees has not been discontinued. The first volume for the 1927 Session will be published shortly.

Sir R. BARNETT: Is the Financial Secretary aware that only one volume has been published for the year 1926, and only one for the year 1927; and that, as a result of the absence of an official record, great inconvenience has been caused?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. I speak subject to correction, but I think two volumes for 1926 have been published, one in May and one in October.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the cost of those publications?

Mr. SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of that question.

CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister the attitude of the Government on the question of constructing a Channel tunnel connecting this country with France; is there any objection by any Government Department; and, if so, the nature of such objection?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have nothing to add to the full statement made on this subject by my predecessor on 7th July, 1924.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Prime Minister not think that the fact that the Locarno Treaty is in existence, and the
fact that the American peace pact proposals are now before us, taken together, justify a reconsideration of the whole matter by a body more likely to take a wider view than the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will study the answer to which I have referred, he kill find that many other views were taken beside that of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I do not consider that the time has come to reconsider the matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Prime Minister not of the opinion that a much more useful expenditure of public money would be to remake the Crinan Canal?

FORESHORE RIGHTS, ANGLESEY.

Sir R. THOMAS: 46.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has inquired further into the question of the Towyn Trewan foreshore, Anglesey; whether he has now substantiated the fact that the public has from time immemorial enjoyed the privilege of carting gravel from this place; and whether, seeing that building operations in this locality are dependent upon this right, he is prepared to determine the lease of the present lessee of the foreshore, to release him from his obligation not to allow the carting of gravel, and to grant a new lease of the foreshore to the conservators of the common?

Mr. GUINNESS: This matter has been carefully investigated on the spot, and I am satisfied that considerable quantities of shingle have from time to time been removed from the foreshore. Such removals took place without authority and have caused, and are causing, serious erosion of the coast. I am advised that for the protection of the adjoining land it is necessary to prohibit the removal of any more shingle. In the circumstances I am not prepared to take the action suggested in the last part of the question.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the Minister of Agriculture say why he is not willing to transfer the lease to the conservators who are the most competent people to judge on the spot?

Mr. GUINNESS: In view of the hon. Baronet's representations, I arranged for the visit of the chief drainage engineer of the Ministry, and his advice fully
reinforces and confirms the advice which I myself had previously received from the locality that in the general interests of the community the removal of this material must be stopped.

Sir R. THOMAS: Did that particular expert to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred give any reason as to why the lease should not be given to the Conservators?

Mr. GUINNESS: To transfer the lease to the Conservators would only increase the damage which is being caused by the removal of the shingle.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to cast an aspersion upon those gentlemen who are conservators?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, but I beg to differ from them.

Sir R. THOMAS: I think the reply is perfectly disgraceful.

SALMON FISHING.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the weight of salmon annually caught in these islands is considerably more than that taken from the rivers and lakes of the whole of the rest of Europe combined, he is satisfied that every measure is being taken to encourage and develop this industry; and whether he deems it capable of considerable further expansion?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am satisfied that, so far as my Department is concerned, all possible steps are being taken to encourage and develop this industry in England and Wales, both by improvements in the administration of the salmon districts and by research into pollution and other problems affecting salmon. Two Committees appointed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and by the Minister of Health and myself respectively are dealing with questions relating to pollution, and I should prefer to await the reports of these Committees before expressing an opinion on the last part of the question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any date when this report will be completed?

Mr. GUINNESS: They are Standing Committees, and no doubt we shall receive reports from time to time.

Captain HENDERSON: is it not a fact that the Thames was once a very prolific source of salmon supplies, and might not inquiries be made to find out whether it would not be possible once more to make the Thames a valuable source of salmon supply?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is splendid salmon fishing in the Mull and elsewhere in the Highlands, where the water is pure and where any amount of salmon can be caught, but whence it cannot be brought to other parts of the country because of the cost and inefficiency of the transport system?

MOTOR FISHING BOATS.

Mr. HASLAM: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of motor fishing boats registered in England and Wales?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. 2,801 motor fishing boats were registered at ports in England end Wales on 31st December, 1927, the latest date for which figures are at present available.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Mr. FORREST: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and names of the industries which have made unsuccessful applications for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I have frequently stated in the House, it is our settled policy not to disclose those industries in respect of which applications have been made under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure, but committees of inquiry have not been appointed. In number, however, they are 20, excluding four cases in which duties were imposed in Finance Acts. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the applications which have been referred to committees.

AIRSHIP "ITALIA."

Mr. ROSE: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if it is the intention of his Department to take part in the expedition now projected by other Governments with the object of determining the fate of the airship "Italia" and her crew?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): No, Sir. There are no British airships in commission, and I fear that the geographical difficulties in the way of a search by Service machines are too great.

Mr. ROSE: Does the hon. Baronet think that it is consonant with the honour and traditions of this country that as long as there is the remotest possibility of saving one of these human lives we should take part in the search?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think I have made it clear that we have not the means of doing so.

Mr. ROSE: Then we ought to have.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS, BO'NESS AND ARMADALE.

Mr. SHINWELL: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received representations from local authorities and other bodies in West Lothian as regards the inability of tenants in municipal houses to pay the present rents; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Representations on this subject have been made to me by the West Lothian Divisional Labour Party and to the. Scottish Board of Health by the local authorities of the Burghs of Bo'ness and Armadale. The fixing of the rents of municipal houses rests with the local authorities, and the approval of the central authority is required only in the case of such houses if built under the Housing and Town Planning, etc. (Scotland), Act, 1919. The application by the local authority of Bo'ness for reduction of the rents of houses erected under this Act was refused after full consideration by the Scottish Board of Health, and the application by the local authority of Armadale is under consideration. Any representations by private bodies must be made to the local authority.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the excessive unemployment and destitution in Armadale, will the right hon. Gentle man give the request of these local authorities favourable consideration?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This matter is receiving the consideration of the Board of Health, and I cannot express any opinion upon it at the present moment.

TEIGNMOUTH.

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. HAYES): 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, though he stated in the House on 16th November, 1925, that the Teignmouth Council had appointed a housing committee which was investigating the question of suitable and available sites for houses, the council has no housing committee and that it has not yet selected sites for housing purposes; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has been misinformed. I understand that the local authority in question has a housing committee and has, in fact, purchased a site of about three and a-quarter acres and entered into a contract for the erection of 28 houses, eight of which have been commenced. I have sanctioned the requisite loans to enable the local authority to proceed with the scheme.

CONTRACT PRICES, TORQUAY.

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. HAYES): 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the cost of and the prices, inclusive of subsidy, received by private builders for houses built under the scheme of the local authority in Torquay; and the amounts of subsidy received by the builders?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the actual cost and selling prices of houses erected by private enterprise under the subsidy scheme at Torquay. Under the town council's scheme for the assistance of private enterprise it was a condition of the grant of subsidy that the net freehold selling price of the house should not exceed £600 after allowing for subsidy. The amount of the subsidy given by the town council was £120.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. KELLY: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour the value of the unemployment relief schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the period July, 1927, to the end of March, 1928?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. The total estimated cost of works promoted by local authorities for the relief of unemployment and approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee from the 1st July, 1927, to the 31st March, 1928, was £1,158,586.

Mr. KELLY: Will the Unemployment Grants Committee still sit to consider these claims, and are they prepared to make further grants?

Captain MARGESSON: I should like notice of that question.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. KELLY: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour why the insurance officer at the Derby Employment Exchange refuses to pay unemployment benefit to Mr. T. Radford, who is unemployed from the British Celanese Works, Spondon, after a period of blindness caused by his work at the artificial silk factory?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is

Period 19th April, 1928 to 14th May, 1928.



Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.


Claims to benefit, disallowed by Insurance Officers.
58,418
1,838
10,514
953
71,723


*Recommendations of Courts of Referees:—







Allowing Benefit
Details not available.
2,694


Disallowing Benefit
5,656


* These eases are not necessarily confined to those disallowed by the Insurance Officers during the period.

Mr. JOHN: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Griffith Thomas, Hill Top House, Lythall Lane, Foleshill, Coventry, was on 2nd February, 1928, sent by the Tonypandy Employment Exchange to a training centre in Birmingham, and was on 9th May, after 14 weeks' training, sent to the Dunlop Motor Works, Coventry;

having inquiry made into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the difficulties that arise in these artificial silk factory districts through the refusal of the Ministry of Labour to pay unemployment benefit to people who are unemployed by reason of the conditions in those factories?

Captain MARGESSON: I understand that my right hon. Friend has only had short notice of this question. He is looking into the matter thoroughly, and will send a reply to the hon. Member.

Mr. KELLY: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the record is made up to 31st May, as to the number of cases dealt with by insurance officers and referred to the court of referees, in the matter of unemployment benefit to men and women whose cases were considered consequent upon the provisions of the new Unemployment Insurance Act?

Captain MARGESSON: The only statistics available relate to the period 19th April, 1928 to 14th May inclusive. As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

that Mr. Thomas, who was formerly a miner, owing to insufficient training had the misfortune to break a drill, and was instantly dismissed; that the Coventry committee has refused to restore hip unemployment benefit; that he is now stranded in Coventry; and will he take immediate steps to restore to Mr. Thomas his benefit?

Captain MARGESSON: My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made into this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

RUBBER (DUTCH VALORISATION SCHEME).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to give any details of the scheme which he has received from Dutch unofficial sources for the valorisation of rubber?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. A scheme was submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies with the request that it should be treated, for the present at least, in a strictly confidential manner. Accordingly, it is not possible to give any details.

COAL MINERS (WAGES).

Mr. SHINWELL: 60.
asked the Secretary for Mines the earnings per shift of adult coal-getters in Great Britain and the Ruhr in 1913 and at the end 13f April, 1928, respectively?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The average earnings per shift of adult coal-getters in Great Britain in June, 1914, which is the only pre-War period for which such figures are available, were 8s. 8d., and for all classes of workers 6s. 6d. In March, 1928, the latest period for which information is available, the average earnings for all classes of workers were about 9s. 4d. a shift. The earnings of adult coal-getters are higher than this, but to what extent is not precisely known. In the Ruhr coalfield the average earnings per shift of adult coal-getters were 6s. 7d. in 1913, and 9s. 4d. in the last quarter of 1927. These figures are exclusive of the value of allowances in kind.

Mr. PALING: In making these calculations, have the huge deficiencies which have accumulated in nearly all colliery districts been taken into account?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; I do not see how that affects the actual earnings per shift.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that under the agreements these deficiencies have to be paid back, and are regarded as a debt owing to the coalowners?

Commodore KING: I am dealing with the earnings received by coal-getters.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it not follow that the conditions that the German miners now have are better than before the War, and does not that indicate that the Germans have won the War and that we have lost the War?

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member will look at the- answer, he will see that the conditions in this country have improved also.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Not in the same ratio.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that, while the earnings of the English miners have increased by 1s. 3d. per day between 1913 and 1928, they have improved from 6s. 7d. to 9s. 4d. in Germany, while the German miners are working one hour per day less than the British miners, and does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that justifies the taking of some steps by the Government?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; I cannot admit that the German mine-workers are working less hours. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) on the 15th of last month, he will see the conditions stated.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the German working day is one of eight hours from bank to bank, while our miners work eight hours plus one winding time, which makes nine hours?

Commodore KING: At many pits they are working nothing like that time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In many pits they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

RUGBY WIRELESS STATION.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the daily average number of
words telegraphed to ships at sea by the Rugby telegraph transmitter from 1st January, 1928?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The average daily number of paid words telegraphed from Rugby to ships at sea is 454 in private messages and 2,506 in news messages, making a total of 2,960 words a day.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the daily average number of messages sent by the telephone transmitter at Rugby from 1st January, 1928?

Viscount WOLMER: Twenty-four daily, including Sundays and public holidays.

PAMPHLET.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to a pamphlet entitled "The Post. Office: Its social and economic services"; whether its publication has been authorised by him; and, if not, whether he can state what organisation is responsible for the cost of its production?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the remaining parts in the negative.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is my Noble Friend aware that this pamphlet has all the appearance of an official publication, that it contains quotations from the Prime Minister, and that all the quotations in it are looked upon as official, whereas really the whole pamphlet is a piece of trade union propaganda?

Mr. AMMON: Does not the Noble Lord agree that the pamphlet sets out in very excellent form the work of the Department?

Viscount WOLMER: I cannot discuss the merits of the pamphlet, but I have read it carefully, and I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) that it looks in the least like an official publication.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will my Noble Friend answer the last part of the question, as to whether he knows the
authority by whom it is published—not the name (if the author, but who supplies the money?

Viscount WOLMER: I have answered that part of the question; I do not.

Major COLFOX: Will my Noble Friend consider embarking upon a certain amount of advertising in connection with the Post Office, to enable the general public to realise all the numerous advantages that arise from the work of the Department?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PHARMACISTS.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a qualified pharmacist is employed at the Army School of Dispensing to give instruction in pharmaceutical subjects?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): A Staff Sergeant Dispenser is employed at the Army School of Dispensing.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War what would be the additional cost of employing a qualified pharmacist in subordinate charge of the dispensing department at Netley hospital in place of the senior non-commissioned officer now employed in that capacity.?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The cost would depend on the terms and conditions of appointment; the extra cost might be about £100 a year.

PRACTICE FIRING (COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 63.
asked the Secretary of St ate for War if he will grant compensation to those persons in the Hartlepools who have sustained damage and whose property has also sustained damage as a result of the practice firing from certain batteries in the immediate neighbourhood?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Compensation is not granted for damage which may result from firing unless there are abnormal circumstances, or it can be shown that there has been negligence on
the part of the military authorities. I am not aware of any damage to persons or property at the Hartlepools due to such negligence, but, if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, and will let me have details, I will have inquiries made.

MILL STRIKE, BOMBAY.

Mr. DAY: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any information that will show the number of mills at present closed on account of the strike in Bombay; and can he give particulars of the new systems of work recommended by the Tariff Board, giving comparable figures of the previous system?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The latest report received from India gives the number of mills closed as 71. The information asked for in the second part of the question will be found in Chapter IX of the Report of the Indian Tariff Board on the Cotton Textile Industry, 1927, a copy of which is being sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. DAY: Have any of the mills been reopened since the Reports were issued?

Earl WINTERTON: I could not answer that question without notice.

POLICE OFFICERS (LIBEL ACTION).

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. HAYES): 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will sanction members of the

Metropolitan Police subscribing to a fund out of which legal aid may be afforded the two constables in the Hyde Park case?

Captain MARGESSON: No, Sir; no such sanction could be given. I would add that the question whether any expenses which may fall on the constables can properly be met from the Police Fund will be considered, but not, of course, till the action has been tried.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister state the business he proposes for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, Supply, On Tuesday, the Board of Trade Vote will be taken. The subject for Monday is not yet decided. I hope to announce it later.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the Prayer Book Measure, 1928, will be debated.
If there is time on any other day other Orders will be taken.
I cannot announce the business for Friday.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill and in Committee on Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) [Money] have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 122.

Division No. 153.]
AYES.
[3.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)


Albery, Irving James
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.
Chapman, Sir S.


Apsley, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A, B.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brass, Captain W.
Christie, J. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briggs, J. Harold
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gon.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Couper, J. B


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Buchan, John
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(L!ndsey,Galnsbro)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Bennett, A. J.
Burman, J, B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Berry, Sir George
Carver, Major W. H.
Dean, Arthur Wollesley


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Orewe, C.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ellis, R. G.
Klnloch-Cooke Sir Clement
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Eraklne, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Slaney, Major P, Kenyon


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Looker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Fermoy, Lord
Loder, J. de V.
Smlthers, Waldron


Flelden, E. B.
Long, Major Erie
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forrest, W.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Streatlelld, Captain S. R.


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C.


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maclntyre, Ian
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Grotrlan, H. Brent
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwlch)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tlnne, J. A.


Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Melier, R. J.
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hammersley, S. S.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waddington, R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C, M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston on-Hull)


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nleld, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wells, S. R.


Hills, Major John Waller
Nuttall, Ellis
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Hilton, Cecil
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Penny, Frederick George
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Perring, sir William George
Womersley, W. J.


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, B. c. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pllditch, Sir Philip
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hume, Sir G. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Illfte, Sir Edward M.
Ramsden, E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rawson, Sir Cooper



James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jephcott, A. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Kindersley, Major G. M.
Salmon, Major I.
Major Sir William Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P.
Klrkwood, D.


Alexander, A, V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Glbbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.


Baker, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln.,Cent.)
Lowth, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Greenall, T.
Lunn, William


Barnes, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Welr, L.


Brlant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bromfield, William
Hardle, George D.
March, S.


Brown, Ernest (Lelth)
Harney, E. A.
Montague, Frederick


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R, C, (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Purcell, A. A.


Day, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dennison, R.
Jonas, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben


Dunnlco, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwlch)


Fenby, T. D.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.H,,Elland)




Rose, Frank H.
Stamford, T. W.
Weilock, Wilfred


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Strauss, E. A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Scurr, John
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sexton, James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shlels, Dr. Drummond
Tomlinson, R. P.
Wright, W.


Shinwell, E.
Townend, A. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Varley, Frank B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Whiteley.

BILLS REPORTED.

RABBITS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

COMPANIES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to he taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

SELECTION (PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION) (JOINT COMMITTEE).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Five Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Private Bills (Consolidation): Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir Arthur Churchman, Mr. Lunn, and Mr. Stephen Mitchell.

Report, to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Christie, Major Elliot, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Loder, and Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Major George Davies, Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Major Bonner, and Lieut.-Colonel Wildly.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Agricultural Credits Bill): Mr. Albert Alexander, the Attorney-General, Captain Briscoe, Mr. Buxton, Sir Henry Cautley, Sir George Courthope, Sir Thomas Davies, Mr. Dean, Mr. Guinness, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Hollins, Mr. A. R. Kennedy, Captain Peter Macdonald, Major Price, Mr. Riley, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mrs. Runciman, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Roy Wilson, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Morgan Jones to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Agricultural Credits Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Falmouth Water Bill,

Ystradfellte Water Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled,

"An Act to extend the boundaries of the Borough of Bridgwater; to empower the Corporation to acquire lands and
execute street works and waterworks; and to confer further powers upon the Corporation of the said borough in regard to their water and market undertakings and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Bradford with reference to tramways and the running of omnibuses and to certain of their undertakings; to authorise them to construct waterworks and acquire lands; to make further provisions for the health and good government of the city; and for other purposes." [Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords],

Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [6th June] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which proposes a new practice in the assessment of property for local rating, bound to create unfair and unjust discrimination between particular enterprises and between industries and localities, is preparatory to a scheme for subsidising certain industries without regard to the conditions of each industry or of the special needs and circumstances of different areas, and is calculated to increase the burden upon householders and shopkeepers and upon road transport and the distributive trade generally."—[Mr. Snowden.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill opened with an unusually apologetic speech from the Minister of Health, delivered in an extraordinarily uncertain tone, and in a minor key, and the Debate last night closed with a frivolous and generally irrelevant speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who referred to this Bill and the Trade Unions Bill as amongst "the great measures of reform" of modern times. Many of us on this side of the House feel a certain difficulty in discussing the Government policy. This piecemeal disclosure of what I imagine is one complete scheme makes it somewhat difficult for us, and our difficulty is increased because there is no secure foothold on the shifting sands of Government policy. The wherewithal for this Bill was provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who before long had to perform a strategic retreat on the question of the Kerosene Duty. Yesterday, the Minister of Health in his speech made preparations for another strategic retreat during the passage of this Bill through the House, when he explained that he was prepared either to bring in
more enterprises or to take out more enterprises. He had a perfectly open mind on the question. This convinces us that he had not had time or opportunity to study the implications of his own Measure. The basis of the Local Government Bill which will come later in the autumn is still "wropt in mystery" and I do not suppose that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Health have the faintest idea how that Bill will emerge from the discussions with local authorities or how it will emerge after passage through this House.
The thing that interests me most about this Measure is that we see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health in roles which are entirely new to them. On the whole, I think I prefer the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the bold, bad baron raiding other people's property, than as a sweetly simple Red Riding Hood taking dainties to a sick and dying industrial system. I am more accustomed and hon. Members on this side of the House are more accustomed to see the Minister of Health as the hard, stern taskmaster of the boards of guardians than in his newly-assumed role of fairy godmother, converting pumpkins into evanescent golden carriages. The true designation for the two right hon. Gentlemen is that of the babes in the wood, but they will be lost for good and there will be no happy ending to their story. Even supporters of the Bill must admit that, after its various alterations and proposed modifications, it is an ill-considered Measure. It is also an ill-conceived Measure.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer first made his statement about productive industry many people cast their minds about for some method of defining what would come within the scope of the Bill. The Minister of Health was driven back upon the definition in the Factories and Workshops Acts. This definition, which is a very old definition and which was devised in the course of years for an entirely different purpose from that for which it is now being used, is such a definition that once having accepted it the right hon. Gentleman had to proceed to hedge it round and prop it up with various provisos. The result of this bastard definition, taken from the Factories and Workshop Act, is that, in-
evitably, he has had to include a large number of enterprises where the special concessions that are being given are not justified, and he has had to exclude a large number of needy ratepayers who certainly are in need of relief.
A good deal has been said about the profitable character of many of the firms who are to be assisted as a result of the operation of this Bill. Attention has been directed primarily to Courtaulds and the brewers. I do not wish to worry the House with details, but there are a large number of other firms which are making extraordinarily large profits to which attention might he drawn. I could quote cases of electrical engineering enterprises, but I will leave them and take one illustration which could be multiplied many times. I refer to the London Brick Company and Forders, Limited. This company has paid out bonuses of 50 per cent, in 1920, 50 per cent. in 1922, 20 per cent. in 1925 and 30 per cent. in 1926, and it has in the last six or seven years steadily increased its ordinary dividends from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. This is to be one of the fortunate enterprises which will secure a remission of three-quarters of its rates. There are a number of other enterprises in the same line of business where the profits are equally large and where the relief will be similar. In the case of Lever Brothers, during the last few years the profits have been more than doubled. The last declared profits amounted to well over £5,250,000 for the year, and this firm, for no reason at all, is to secure relief amounting to three-quarters of the rates that it pays. The British American Tobacco Company, which paid a 25 per cent, tax free dividend to its ordinary shareholders, had profits last year of over £6,250,000, while the Imperial Tobacco Company, with profits last year of over £9,000,000 and 25 per cent. tax free dividends, will also share in the rate relief. Breweries and distilleries have profits running into seven figures.
4.0.p.m.
Without any justification that one can see, these large and profitable businesses, in order to swell their already extravagant profits, are to receive direct assistance from public funds, and the extraordinary thing is that luxury trades, again for no reason at all, are to be put in the category of enterprises which will be assisted
by the beneficence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I quote just one illustration of this, although there are a good many other illustrations. A perfumery company, which is a manufacturing firm engaged in making fine toilet soap, perfumery and toilet luxuries, paid in 1926 a dividend of 75 per cent. on its ordinary shares. A good many of the luxury enterprises now are doing extraordinarily well, and ought to be thankful that they are making the profits they are, without receiving any further assistance from the public. But while these profitable and non-essential enterprises are receiving public assistance, the public supply services, for a reason which is not very clear, are excluded. The right hon. Gentleman, yesterday, in justification said that these bodies were monopolies, and that it would be difficult to ensure that the rating relief would be transferred so as to stimulate industry. I should have thought that statutory corporations of this kind operating under Act of Parliament and being, in effect, monopolies, were bodies which could be more effectively controlled than the private industries which are receiving such a large amount of relief. I will quote statements made by the chairmen of three electricity supply companies in London, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Northampton, because there is an assumption that these electricity supply companies are not in need of assistance, and that if they get it it will be of no direct advantage to industry as a whole. In the case of the London Electric Supply Corporation, the chairman at the last ordinary general meeting of the company, said that the company had paid last year a sum amounting to £85,792 in respect of rates. He added:
"This sum of £85,792 represents more than 41 per cent. of our total fuel costs, and is over 12 per cent. on the whole of the issued ordinary share capital, and over 45 per cent. more than the standard rate of dividend we are this year paying to our ordinary shareholders under the 1925 Act."
In the case of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, this year the chairman of the company made this statement:
"The increase in rates which we had to pay in 1927 over those paid in 1925 represents tie less than 64 per cent. of the increase in profit earned in 1927 over that earned in 1925. Put in another way, local rates cost us £23 more per employé last year than in 1925. A lightening of this burden would go a long way towards bringing about the trade revival so anxiously looked for 1y all engaged in industry."
I quote, finally, the speech of the chairman of the Northampton Electric Light and Power Company, Limited;
"I doubt, too, if it is generally realised what a heavy charge rates are upon such an undertaking as ours, and how much they add to the cost of production per unit. In the accounts now before you, local rates amount to .086d. per unit sold, and as more than 75 per cent. of your output is sold at or near 1d. per unit, it is an exceedingly heavy tax. With the new assessments this will be nearly one-eighth of a penny per unit. This must naturally have a considerable effect upon the price of electricity, especially for industrial purposes."
I think that if a case can be made for special relief, it might well be made by these electricity corporations who are supplying power to an increasing area in industry, and where a remission of taxation could be so arranged as to inure to the advantage of industry and the general body of consumers. Under the category of freight-transport, the most obvious omission is that of commercial transport, and I cannot for the life of me understand the Government spending money on roads on the one hand, and penalising the users of roads on the other. Road transport, whether railway interests like it or not, is an essential part of the transport system of this country, but it is in the position of being not only deprived of relief but of having to provide the wherewithal for commercial rivals and for industrial enterprises. Road transport is not a guest at the Government's feast; it is the fatted calf. Trams, omnibuses and tubes are also excluded. In the ease of omnibuses, it has already been said in this House that this will result in higher charges to the general public. It seems to me to he economically as advisable to secure a reduction of passenger rates as of freight rates, and yet the whole body of passenger traffic is excluded. The distributive trades, although they are great and increasing users of petrol to-day, are having to pay for the relief of other branches of industry.
I should like to turn more especially to the case of householders. The householders of the country pay something like half the amount of the rates. In my own division, in the town of Nelson, of £170,000 paid in rates last year, £67,000 was paid by, people who live in houses assessed at the same rate as
the corporation non-parlour houses or less; that is to say 40 per cent. of the rates paid in that town are paid by working-class households. As a matter of fact, the total amount is larger, because there are many working people who are living in parlour houses, but I am keeping to the section who, for one reason or another, are unable to live in parlour houses. Their contribution to the local rates last year was £67,000. If three-fourths of that were remitted to working-class homes, I think it could be shown that that would be infinitely more advantageous economically than distributing that amount of money to industrial enterprises. The amount of rates which fall now upon the mass of the people is very substantial. I could give examples from other places to show that working-class people are paying out 3s., 4s. or 5s. per week from limited resources in respect of rates. This is a real burden, compared with which the burden on many individual industrial enterprises is relatively small.
In the Debate last night, the Parliamentary Secretary, either wilfully or accidentally, misunderstood the words used by my right hon. Friend who mol, ed the Amendment to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) quoted—and quite rightly quoted—a number of figures which were produced by the Balfour Committee on the burden of rates in industry. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary did not like the figures, but my right hon. Friend cannot be responsible for them; they are not his figures. What my right hon. Friend said, if I understood his meaning, as I think I did, is not that there is no great burden on industry, but that there is a heavy burden of rates upon the people of this country, and that the right method of rating relief is not by a narrow, partial scheme, but by some method which would relieve the rates of the great masses of the people. His words were:
"Rates are a far greater burden upon shopkeepers and householders than they are upon any other class in the community. They take a far larger percentage of the shopkeeper's profits and a far larger percentage of the householder's income."
That is a statement of fact which cannot be denied.
"If the Minister of Health had wanted to do something which would really encour-
age trade and increase employment, he ought to have proposed the complete derating of houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; col. 200, Vol. 218.]
That, I think, is a perfectly justifiable conclusion, and does not mean that the burden of rates is non-existent. Indeed, I think this party can claim to have discovered it before the right hon. Gentleman. We also had quoted last night an extract from a speech which I made in this House in 1924. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary ought to know it by heart, but he has only learnt part of it, and he has invariably refused my request that be should read the rest of it. Again, I must weary the House by reading the rest of it myself. What I said with regard to necessitous areas, I have no reason to unsay. I still believe that to treat necessitous areas separately by themselves as a special, peculiar problem is impossible, and I said that in the House on the occasion to which the. Parliamentary Secretary referred. But I went on to say:
"In fact, the question of necessitous areas raises the whole problem of the relations between national and local finance. Until that problem is overhauled, it is quite hopeless to expect that we could deal with necessitous areas as necessitous areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1924; col. 2,602, Vol. 176.]
Then I went on to point out that the Government, by increasing grants to local authorities in respect of unemployment, and by the improvements in unemployment insurance, were bringing to all authorities, and particularly overburdened authorities, the kind of relief they needed—a policy which has been reversed by the present Government. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no policy in this matter on this side of the House is untrue, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, if he will take the trouble to learn a few more lines of the speech which he is so fond of quoting. The economic effects of this scheme are what really matter. I suppose that the full effects depend upon the combined results of direct rate relief to individual hereditaments and upon freight reductions. The large remission of taxation per ton in the case of steel is arrived at by assuming that there are going to be freight. reductions equivalent to the amount of rate relief which freight transport enterprises will receive.
The right hon. Gentleman bars out public supply corporations, because he is not sure that the advantages will accrue to industry. He cannot be sure that the advantage of freight reductions are going to accrue to industry either for very long. Even if she right hon. Gentleman were to make a deal with the railway companies that the whole of the rate remissions which they enjoy are to be transferred to the users of railways by reduced rates for heavy merchandise, it does not follow that that settles the question. We have no guarantee, and the right hon. Gentleman can have no guarantee that within a year or eighteen months the railway companies will not be appealing to the Railway Rates Tribunal for a revision of freights upwards in order to meet new charges which they could not foresee. Therefore, I think we may rule out from the permanent possible advantages of this Measure that which may come from freight reductions. We are left with that which will come from direct rate relief.
As I sec it, there are certain fundamental defects in this Bill which no amount of amendment can possibly put right. The first—it was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—is the attempt to draw a distinction between productive and distributive enterprises. That distinction is purely artificial. It does not obtain in practice. It cannot obtain in practice. Distribution to-day is as much a part of the processes of production as machine processes and so on. That false distinction is going to have unfortunate effects even upon the so-called productive enterprises. If the economic system hangs together as one system—as it must do— to leave the essential service of distribution bearing increased burden means that the productive enterprises which are going to get relief are not going to reap the full benefits of that relief.
The scheme is also unsound, because it differentiates between different classes of transport. One of the greatest needs of this country is a properly co-ordinated system of transport. Transport should not be regarded as a series of rival competitive enterprises, but as a co-ordinated system of complementary methods of transport. What this Bill does, is to turn road transport into the enemy of the
railway system and to leave railway transport to despise road transport as a milch cow which can be used in order to help the railway enterprises to larger trade at the expense of the road enterprises. This freight transport section of the Bill is fundamentally wrong, because it introduces another false distinction, a distinction between freight transport and passenger transport. In the last resort, the state of trade in this country depends upon the available purchasing power in the hands of the great body of the people, and if they can get their effective purchasing power increased by a reduction of passenger charges—and all people are passengers to-day on trams, omnibuses and tubes—that is as much an economic service as trying to take it off iron, steel, and coal. The beneficial effects of the Bill, so far as they exist, would have been improved had this distinction between various forms of transport and the distinction between freight transport and passenger transport been obliterated.
It is fundamental to the Bill that it is bound to create confusion and anomalies, and bound to create serious injustices just because it is a partial Measure, just because it is concerned, not with a general measure of rate relief, but because it is confined within definitely laid-down boundaries. I do not object to the Government helping prosperous enterprises if that is part of a general dispensation of relief, because clearly, if there is a general dispensation of relief, you will help prosperous enterprises and unprosperous enterprises, wealthy ratepayers and needy ratepayers. Therefore, there is no objection to helping prosperous enterprises if it is part of a general scheme of rate remission. If the scheme is not to cover the whole field, then the field which is to be covered clearly must be, if it is to be scientific and effective, restricted to the needy and to the depressed trades: otherwise, if within the field that you have delimited for special rating relief, there are people who are more prosperous than people who are outside it you have immediately created an injustice which you can never overcome.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his rather airy treatment of this question on the Second Reading of the
Finance Bill, spoke of the ignorance of economics. Well, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that economics is his strong card. He referred in his speech—and the matter was referred to also by the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health—to the dissipation of the fruits of his disposals. That was in reply to the argument that this scheme should have been more general in its application. The first point to be made about that is that part of the £26,000,000 is being really dissipated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that £5,000,000 is going to industries which are not depressed. Within the field of the depressed industries, it may be that another £5,000,000 is going to people who do not need it, and, if that be so, there is £10,000,000 dissipated right away without any accruing economic advantage to the community, but with enlarged profits and perhaps enlarged directors' fees to those who work the enterprises.
A diffusion of rating relief might be economically advantageous. I have already referred to the heavy burden of rates upon the working classes of this country. Assume, if you like, that on an average they pay 4s. a week in rates. That is not an extravagant figure. Three-quarters remission of rates would put into the homes of working-class families 3s. more per week. Three shillings more per week to a working-class family means more in boots, more in clothing, more in travel, and more of all the things that the great mass of purchasers require and use and consume. Three-quarters remission of rates to large prosperous enterprises is a clear dissipation of resources, because it cannot possibly yield an advantage equivalent to the gift that is being given to them. I would like some hon. Member on the opposite side of the House to prove to my satisfaction that rating remission to prosperous enterprises will percolate through to the general body of the public. If it is a case of dissipating resources, look at the mining situation! Pumping money into the mines is not going to help the mining situation. It is going to make the mining situation worse. The trouble is not that prices of coal are too high. The trouble to-day is that prices of coal are too low. The fact that within the past 12 months the pithead price of
coal in South Wales has fallen by half a crown and that the situation is as bad now as it was a year ago is distinct proof that merely pumping money into the industry and merely reducing the costs in the industry is not going to help you out of your difficulty.
I have one further criticism to make. This Bill is a permanent measure of relief to alleviate a situation which the Government professes to believe is passing. But perhaps they do not believe that it is passing. If and when the present conditions vanish, the country will be left with an absurdly lop-sided rating system, until there is a great change made, and a rating system under which a very large number of people will be in the position of being permanently subsidised by the rest of the people. I am convinced of this, that in the future the amount of rates to be paid by these enterprises which are having three-quarters of their rates remitted, will not be sufficient to pay their share of the directly beneficial services which the local authorities provide. With every big new development of industrial enterprises in an area, these concerns will become parasitic upon the general body of ratepayers. They will become parasitic upon them, because these new enterprises will require roads, street lighting, water supply, sewers, police, fire brigades—[An HON. MEMBER: "Houses"!"]—I leave out houses, but I am prepared to admit that housing, health, and education are of advantage to industry. But I rule them out. I confine myself to the very narrow range of beneficial services from which industry does directly benefit. With every new development of industrial enterprises in an area, I am convinced that those people will not be paying their fair share of the rates even for that limited range of services. Therefore, the effect of this Measure is not going to be to de-rate a number of people to the general advantage. It is going to have the effect of putting new rate burdens on the vast majority of the people for the benefit of a number of enterprises which do not need it. The economic situation a few years from now may be entirely changed, and it may be that if the right hon. Gentleman were here, then he would want to de-rate some entirely different kinds of enterprises. These enterprises which in a new situation might want, assistance
will be struggling to pay the rates that ought to be borne by the other industrial enterprises.
This is the Government's much advertised scheme. I think it would be difficult to find a more extraordinary combination of political short-sightedness and muddled economics than you have here. There are ways and means of dealing with this problem. Those ways and means have been put before this House on more than one occasion. Rating relief is a national necessity, but it must proceed en scientific lines. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, claimed that this was a scientific scheme. It is science of the days of alchemy, the days of the Middle Ages. A scientific scheme is one which takes services which are essentially national and makes them a national charge. If that policy was being followed to-day the industries and areas which are most severely hit would receive the maximum of assistance, and those areas and industries which are not in difficult circumstances would receive the minimum of assistance.
This Bill cuts right across every scientific principle, adopts a false basis of classification, will put an enormous burden on local authorities, introduce bad feeling everywhere, impose new burdens on the State and lead to an increase in the bureaucracy, which we are always told is the fear of the Tory party. My own view is that the Tory party are the upholders of bureaucracy, and this Bill proves it. It means more work for bureaucracy, because of the fundamentally false basis of the scheme, and although I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite will ever understand the elementary principles of economics I should like to hope that for once the House will rise to a consideration of the economic issues involved and say with hon. Members on this side of the House that this is the wrong way of doing the right thing.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) very deeply. I am quite prepared to join issue with the hon. Member. It has been said that the Minister of Health made an apologetic speech yesterday, but I think hon. Members will agree
that seldom have they listened to a speech with such a note of apology running through it as the speech which the hon. Member has just delivered. He has endeavoured to smooth over some of the perhaps regrettable inferences which might be drawn from the speech of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) yesterday, when he told us in plain and unmistakable terms that rates as such were no burden on industry. In any case, I leave that to the Labour party to explain. For myself I have no apologies to make either here or in the country, to the electors, the public generally or to local authorities, for the scheme which His Majesty's Government have put forward. I have risen to-day for the main purpose of trying to explain to the House, and particularly to my colleagues from Scotland, the application of the proposals in the Bib to Scottish conditions. This is a Bill of machinery, a step towards the ultimate development of the whole scheme. It is a necessary part in the evolution of this scheme, and the clause which refers to Scotland is Clause 9.
The scheme will be equally applicable to England and Scotland. There will be three-quarters relief to productive industries in Scotland, a de-rating of agricultural land in Scotland, and there will be the advantage from the relief of railway freights in Scotland as well as in England. Of course the circumstances and methods by which we shall arrive at this result must be, as hon. Members from Scotland know, on different lines, because it must be realised that whereas in England only the occupiers pay rates, broadly speaking in Scotland, although there are some modifications, the owner and occupier share the rates half and half. There are, of course, further complications when we deal with the position of rates upon agricultural land because the occupier is rated on one-quarter and the owner on three-quarters of the value of the land. There is this added fact, which is one of the difficulties which will have to he dealt with, that in England the farmhouses and cottages are valued separately from the land, whereas in Scotland the farm is valued as a unit, and therefore a method must be found to deal with this problem. If industry and agriculture in Scotland are to have the same benefit as industry and agriculture
in England, that measure of relief should be given both to owners and occupiers. Particularly is it necessary to deal in this manner with large classes of owner occupiers on whom the burden of rates has fallen with peculiar severity.
It is therefore proposed to give relief to industry upon the same lines as is given in England. There will be cases where the owner is not also the occupier and will be paying part of the rates in industrial concerns. Where relief is given it will be given both to the owner and occupier, and in so far as industrial subjects are concerned, the relief so granted to the owner will be passed on by him—it will be provided in legislation—to the occupier of productive industry during the existing leases or arrangements. In the case of railways the same condition will apply as applies to railways in England. That is obvious because the railway systems are common to both countries. With regard to docks, harbours, piers and canals, exactly the same conditions will apply.
I turn now to the problem of agricultural land. As everyone knows, the conditions under which agriculture is conducted across the Border vary, and have varied for a long time, from the conditions and methods applied in England, and they differ in this fundamental point, that in Scotland both owner and tenant are associated in the production of agriculture. They are partners in the industry, and the burden of rates which it is admitted has fallen on the owner and tenant has made it difficult for one of the partners to carry out to the fullest extent and in the most admirable way any improvement of the conditions in the industry in which he is associated. It is necessary and desirable that the burden should be relieved from the shoulders of owners and occupiers. That principle has already been recognised by the House. It was recognised under the Agricultural Rates Relief Act in 1923, and I must add this, that there are other material factors to be considered, because in Scotland the conditions differ, in the main, from those in England. Leases as a rule are for much longer periods, and that fact makes a material difference between the two systems.
The Government, therefore, propose to relieve the tenant of the rates which he
at present pays upon the land, and to relieve the owner of part of the rates which he pays on his section, and put in a provision by which a half of the relief which the owner receives shall, during the existing tenancy, be passed on to the tenant. I should like hon. Members to realise that the tenant will be relieved of the burden of rates on the one-fourth which he is at present paying on the land, and that the owner will be relieved of the rates which he is paying on the three-quarters; and that half of the amount by which the owner is re lieved will, during the existing tenancy, be passed on to the tenant, so that the tenant will have the direct relief of his own rates and also the additional relief of half the relief which the owner receives. That will be, in effect, a direct reduction of rent.
There remains the problem of how one is to deal with the farm houses and cottages. As I have already explained, the system in England and Scotland differs in that in England buildings have been separately valued from the land whereas in Scotland the farm has been valued as a unit, including the land, buildings and cottages. If we were now to adopt the same system as is followed in England, and proceed to value each individual farm and cottage throughout the whole of Scotland, it would be not only a lengthy but a difficult business, and would lead in some circumstances, particularly in the case of the smaller farms and holdings, possibly to an increase and not a decrease in the burden of rates on the individual.
Therefore, the Government propose not to proceed by a direct valuation of those subjects, but to take a figure which, in their opinion, will be a reasonable valuation; and what we propose to do is to adopt the figure of one-sixth of the gross rental of each subject, as representing as nearly as may be upon the average throughout the country a fair and reasonable proportion on which each individual should pay. I would ask the House to observe that this, if carried into effect, will mean, of course, that, whereas at the present time the tenant is paying on one-fourth, he will in future only pay upon one-sixth of the gross rental, and he will be, in addition, receiving one-half of the relief of rates given to the owner. It will be seen at once that this method of
dealing with this problem must give rise to certain anomalies, but they will be anomalies, loaded, if I may say so, to the advantage of the smaller holder and the small farmer as against the large farmer. Under these circumstances, I think that, on consideration, you will find that this method of dealing with this special problem will be the fairest to all concerned.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask if, in taking one-sixth, you are taking the whole compass of the farm?

Sir J. GILMOUR: You are taking one-sixth of the gross rent of the farm. If I have made myself clear, therefore, we propose to deal with agricultural land by totally derating the land and leaving the rates upon houses and cottages to be levied on one-sixth of the gross rental. I will only add, in reply to some of the interrupticns from hon. Members on the other side, that the sporting values will remain fully rated. That may interest some of my hon. Friends who come from the deer forest areas.

Mr. HARDIE: I perhaps did not make myself clear. What I want to know is, does the rent that is going to be the basis upon which you deduct one-sixth include sporting land?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Agricultural land is to be rated on one-sixth of its value, on its gross rental. There is one other point with regard to agriculture which I should mention. As in England, so in Scotland, woodlands will be included in the scheme. This method of dealing with an admittedly difficult and complicated problem of rating has, I am glad to say, met with the consideration of the assessors u ho, of course, will have to carry it out, and they have assured me that they se no insuperable difficulty in dealing with these matters on the lines which the Government suggest. It would be, perhaps, right for me to say that, as in England so in Scotland, the revenue officers, to whom my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health alluded yesterday, will, as in England, be concerned only with the first valuation roll which will be established. Everyone affected will, under the existing valuation law, receive notice of the proposed changes. There is perhaps a slight difference in the procedure in Scotland and England where it will not be necessary for the
individuals concerned in Scotland to make an application, and, wherever a change is made, intimation will go to them, and they will have the ordinary avenue of appeal.
There remains one other rather important matter which I should mention. It is the question of the date when this scheme will come into operation in Scotland. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that in Scotland we rate yearly from the 16th of May to the 15th of May, whereas in England it is half-yearly. Therefore, it will be necessary for us to make special provision to meet the difference in the date; but that will be a matter of adjustment and will be provided for in the scheme, so that Scotland will have the advantage at the same time as England will have it. I think I should add that, while this Measure which we are considering to-day is of course a Measure for machinery, for ascertaining values, of course in Scotland, as in England, it is to be followed by a scheme which will be accompanied by block grants in lieu of the present percentage grants for the same services as in England, and that will, of course, necessitate obviously large changes of areas, larger areas. I propose to issue a Memorandum similar to that which the Minister of Health will issue in England, which I hope will be available this month, as his will be, and I shall subsequently enter into discussions with local authorities in Scotland and go into the problem with them in an endeavour, as far as may be, to obtain general agreement in the working in the future of this scheme.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: We were promised a paper giving the yield of rates on the various classes of property in Scotland somewhat similar to that for England. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea when it will be in our hands?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I answered a question in regard to that some time ago. I believe the greater part of the information is now in the hands of the printers, and I hope it will be available for hon. Members very shortly. A great deal of that information has to be obtained from the local authorities. I will only say, in conclusion, that this scheme, wide and far-reaching as it must be, having, as it is bound to have, many repercussions
upon existing practice, will, I hope, be seriously, and if I may even say so, sympathetically considered, not only by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House, but by the local authorities throughout the country. I think it is clear, whatever differences of opinion we may hold, that this is a matter long overdue, a problem which, if we can reach a fair and reasonable working solution of it will meet and alleviate a great part of those difficulties which press very severely upon our congested areas. I would say to my hon. Friends from Scotland, that I should be surprised to learn that they, at any rate, would think that such relief, even if it is not so full and complete as some of them might desire, is not going to have an appreciable effect upon industry in Scotland, or that it is not going to give an impetus at a difficult period to agriculture. For myself, I believe that, though we may have much to do following what we are setting our hands to to-clay, this is a step in the right direction, that it is more than a step, that it will be a momentous occasion when we shall see the wheels of industry going round in a manner that they are not doing at the present time.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has made the particular proposals which will adapt the Government scheme to Scotland as clear as anybody could to a Southern intelligence; hut I am afraid that I cannot follow him. That is not because there was any lack of lucidity in his statement—on the contrary, I think it was a remarkably clear statement—but because I do not pretend to be conversant with the subject of Scottish rating and land and I do not feel competent to express any opinion on the proposals which he has put forward. I have no doubt that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who represent Scotland will have something to say upon the subject. I would rather confine myself, therefore, to an examination of the principles of the scheme as a whole. I would agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the general desirability of something being done. I agree with him that it is overdue. There is no doubt at all that the burden of the rates, especially in certain areas, does very seriously cripple industry, both productive and distributive, and that it is an intolerable burden,
especially in particular areas, upon the whole population. That l think is common ground to everybody in this House and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) did not, I gathered, take a different view, except that he confined his criticism rather to the incidence of the rates.
5.0 p.m.
I think it is important, for two reasons, that the whole issue between the Government and us should be realised. I think we should thrash it out in this House in the spirit of the declaration which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health yesterday, that there was nothing final in these proposals, that the Memorandum which is to be issued and which is the crucial one, will contain, as I understand it, full particulars of the scheme in such a way that the local authorities will understand exactly what relief will come to their individual areas. He said that that Memorandum is to be a provisional one; it is to be a subject for discussion, a subject for criticism, a subject. For suggestion, and that, if the Government are convinced that the particular plan which they put forward is not the best means of obtaining the end they have in view in common with all other sections in this House, no personal feeling would prevent them abandoning this particular proposal. I did not observe that the Minister of Health nodded assent to that statement. At any rate it is very important. I wish I were dealing with the Minister of Health alone. I cannot help feeling convinced that he is open to conviction upon this subject. There is just a chance that if he were approached in that spirit this problem, which was a vexed one before the present period of distress and depression, which was calling for treatment long before that and which has now become urgent and insistent, might be solved in such a way as to give general satisfaction, not to everybody but to the community as a whole. If we fail to do that, it is very important that it should be stated clearly and that the country should understand what the Government are proposing and what we are objecting to in their proposals. Obviously, the first is the better solution. Let us examine it if we may from that point of view. Let me say at once that the point is how the money which is
now in the hands of the Government, the money which will be increased by the sum available next year, can be best utilised for the speedy and effective solution of this rating problem.
May I say here that it is no use suggesting that when we criticise, we are doing so merely because we want to attack the rich. Quite frankly that is silly. This problem was considered by a great many of us long before the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned his attention to it. We did not know when we were putting forward the proposals to which he has referred that he had any scheme in his mind at all. The men who were engaged in the preparation of the Liberal schemes to which he has alluded were, some of them, very prosperous industrialists and, by the way, three or four of them were industrialists in one of the industries which the right hon. Gentleman has classified as depressed—which shows that when you refer to depressed industries it does not mean that there are not a great many people in those industries who are very prosperous. They came to the conclusion that this was not the best plan. They put forward another plan. They did not do so because they were envious of the rich, but because they thought it was the best method of dealing with the problem. It is in that spirit that I urge their scheme on this House as a better alternative than that proposed by the Government.
I shall give the reasons why I think that of all plans this, on the whole, is the worst. I think so honestly. I am thoroughly of that opinion and I do not believe it could have been prepared by men who knew anything at all about rating. I am absolving the Minister of Health for reasons which he indicated pretty clearly yesterday. There was one part of his speech which I thought was most remarkable. A lucid speech by the right hon. Gentleman explaining proposals is nothing unusual, because I have never heard from him a speech that was not lucid. Indeed, if I may speak as a very old Parliamentarian, I was reminded by him of the extremely lucid and clear speeches of a great relative of his in the past. There was, as I say, nothing unusual in that; but he made it quite plain that he had had no time in which to consider these proposals. He said it was impossible for him to make the necessary inquiries. I have since
gone carefully through the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I cannot find that passage. I wonder what has happened to it. He said it was impossible foe him to make the necessary inquiries in the time, because of the secrecy which was attached to the preparation of the Budget. That passage may be there, but I have not been able to find it, and I have gone through the report very carefully. It may be, of course, that it was not heard, but at any rate that is a very remarkable statement.
There are things in the Budget about which, of course, one has to be very secret when making inquiries. There are things like duties on sugar and tobacco and spirits about which you have to be very careful, when making investigations beforehand, so as to give no hint of what you are going to do in regard to them, and so as to prevent forestalling. But nobody is going to forestall in the matter of rates. You are not going to have a rush of people paying rates because of something that may turn up in the Budget. What possible objection could there have been on the ground of secrecy, to making a prolonged investigation in every quarter, consulting great municipal leaders, great municipal experts, chambers of trade and commerce and leading industrialists, employers and workmen, throughout the country? It is perfectly true that it would have become known, but what harm would that have been? What harm would it have been, had it been known that the Government were projecting a great scheme for the relief of industry or of oppressed areas as far as rates were concerned? It would have given new hope. There is only one thing that would have been destroyed and that would have been the drama of the Budget. But why should that be introduced as an element when you have to consider vital matters of this kind where there are practical difficulties?
I am the last man in the world to disparage the advice of Treasury officials. They have great knowledge, and I have no doubt the same thing applies to those who are advising the Minister of Health. But when you come to deal with the rating system of this country all these outside authorities should be called in, and information should be obtained from them with regard to the best method of
proceeding. But we are told there was the secrecy of the Budget to be considered, and what is the result? The right hon. Gentleman yesterday practically said that he had no definition except a rough and ready one. My impression of this is, that it is very rough but certainly not ready. He says when it comes to the basis of apportionment that he is going to leave it to the common sense of the assessment committees. They will find a way out. If they do not, there are always the Judges. They will be able to find some sort of method and, then, thank God for the House of Lords! We can always go round there. This state of things is entirely due to the fact, I have no doubt, that the Ministry of Health, who are primarily concerned with this matter, have not been consulted in time and have not been able to put their machinery into operation to consult the various people who could advise them and who, I am perfectly certain, would have been called into consultation by them if they had had an opportunity in good time.
What is the result? They are going to issue a memorandum. They are going to say in this memorandum what they propose to do, but they add that it is only provisional. We voted £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 on Monday upon a scheme regarding which the Government have not made up their minds—a purely provisional scheme. For the first time, they are now going to call into consultation the people whom they ought to have consulted from the very start—the great municipal authorities of this country—upon the subject. They are now going to invite these authorities to come in and discuss the matter with them. That ought to have been done before, and, if it had been done before, you would not have had this scheme. The trouble about this scheme is this. The £29,000,000 for the relief of rates is good, but this method of apportioning it—of allocating it—is vicious. The trouble of the right hon. Gentleman will be that when he goes into consultation he will go chained by the leg by this principle. He can go neither to the right nor to the left. That is a point which I would put quite respectfully as one on which the House of Commons should insist—that the right hon. Gentleman should go in with a free hand to discuss this matter with the local authorities.
My first reason for saying that the scheme is bad is this—that whilst the need is urgent the relief tarries. Nobody has described—I will not say in more lurid—in more desperate terms the condition of our export trade than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not four-fifths of what it was before the War. I have realised all along that this is one of the most serious problems with which we have to deal, and many a time have I tried to call attention to it in this House and outside it and I have been told that I ought not to do so because I was advertising the fact. But I am glad that the House of Commons is taking this as the basis of a serious discussion at last. With our increase in population, with our gigantic increase of the burden of taxation our export trade ought to be one and a-half times what it was before instead of being only four-fifths of what it was, in order to deal with those contingencies. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say?
Unemployment remains obstinately chronic around the dismal figure of 1,000,000. All those basic industries which used to be the glory of this island and which must always constitute an essential element in the life of every nation and which are vital to our export trade—all those industries are at the present time in serious eclipse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; col. 844, Vol. 216.]
Crippled by rates! But all these vital industries, the glory and the life of the nation are to remain in this condition for 18 months. With the cash in the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer nothing is to be given to them during that time to them out. What greater condemnation could you have of this scheme than the description given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the condition of these industries and the lame conclusion that he is only going to help them 18 months hence? It is indefensible. Why have we to wait for 18 months? The Minister of Health yesterday made it conclusively clear. I do not think anybody could resist the conclusion to which he came that it was impossible—if the present scheme is the only one—to confer the benefits under this scheme before 1st October, 1929. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I think, indeed, he is over-sanguine. I do not think he will be able to do it by 1st, October, 1929. I know something of rating. I had con-
siderable experience of rating in my original training and I know something of the way in which the machinery of assessment works. Ministers are always sanguine as to the time in which they can bring an Act of Parliament into operation.' That is not peculiar to the present Government. Anybody who believes in a great scheme wants to see it operate as quickly as possible, but it is very difficult to bring great machinery into existence in a limited time. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman from that point of view, but he has had the experience of his own Rating Act. Under that Act it was assumed that the valuation would have been ready but he has found it necessary to postpone it to the 1st April next.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The Act gave an option to the local authorities to choose either 1st April, 1928, or 1st April, 1929. The great majority of them selected the latter dale.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the correction of the right hon. Gentleman. But that shows at once that the right hon. Gentleman thought it possible that they might do it in 1928. They found it impossible to do it in 1928, and they have chosen the later date.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have not found it impossible. Some have chosen 1928. My own town of Birmingham, for instance, has done its valuation in 1928, but other: prefer to take the later date.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can understand Birmingham. They are very nimble people in Birmingham, and naturally there is the influence of the right hon. Gentleman himself there, but there are very few—that is myinforrnation—who will have done it in 1928. The vast majority have come to the conclusion that they cannot do it till 1929. Therefore, it does really take longer than Ministers, with a great equipment at their command, think possible. These assessment committees have not got an equipment of that kind at their command; and, besides, all the surveyors are fully engaged upon it, and they have to take their turn. The assessment committees are choked with appeals in cases where it has already come into operation. But what I wait to point out is this, that until you have got that valuation, you
have no basis of apportionment. This Bill contemplates an apportionment between the productive and the rest. Between now and the 1st April, 1929, there will be innumerable appeals to settle what the basis is to begin with, and until that basis of valuation has been settled, how can you settle the apportionment of something which has not in itself been established After you have done that, when you have got the whole of your valuation ready, by the 1st April, 1929, your apportionment begins. But may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an apportionment; it is a re-valuation. It is not merely an arithmetical calculation, which can be worked out in an office; it is a re-valuation. I have been re-reading his speech, and he has given a very clear account of the processes you have to go through. You have, first, to find out what the value of the office is, what the value of the storage is, what the value of the garages where you keep your lorries is. There are all sorts of things which ere excluded, and you have, therefore, to value those to begin with. You have to go through a process of re-valuation. Not only that, but there are scores of thousands of ratepayers who will not know whether they are on the right or the wrong side of this three-fourths grant until you have got the valuation. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not get a better word than "primarily." I am not in a position to suggest a better word, but "primarily" is a question of valuation. Before you can decide whether premises are primarily used for distributive purposes, you must get the value, so that you have to go through a process of valuation in order to establish your apportionment.
Then you have the appeals to the assessment committees—an appeal from the ratepayer, an appeal from the officer representing the Treasury, an appeal from the assessment committee up to Quarter Sessions, and an appeal from Quarter Sessions up to the Judge. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer may smile, 'but I am just quoting exactly what was said by his colleague the Minister of Health. He treats with contempt everything that comes from his colleague, but he should not; he should Day more respect to it.
If he had listened a little more, he would not have been in this mess now. You appeal then to a Judge, and what did the right hon. Gentleman say yesterday? He said, what was perfectly accurate—and everybody with any experience of this matter knows it—that when the Judge decides a case, he is not deciding that individual case only; his decision may cover scores, if not hundreds and thousands of other cases, so that until you get the judgment of the Courts upon some matters that will arise, you will not be able to get your valuation. You are not going to get your apportionment valuation by the 1st October, 1929. Therefore, you are very wise to put it off till after the General Election. While you are in the position that the need is urgent, you have ingeniously delayed rescue as long as you possibly could, with the cash in the right hon. Gentleman's Docket. He has got the money in his pocket now, bulging.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Like the corn bins!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Like the corn bins that the right hon. Gentleman's friends talk about. It was one of the Chancellor's friends that used them, and I never believed in them after that. When it comes, it will operate badly, and I say to the Minister of Health now—I venture to predict to him—that when he comes face to face with the local authorities, they will not stand it. He will not mind that. What are the proposals? We are criticised, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was attacked very savagely, and, I think, very questionably, by the Minister of Health about his being misinformed. Whose fault is that? It would be different if we had had the formula, which is to be prepared this month. I shall be very surprised if it is not at the very last week in this month, and probably the very last day in the last week of this month. It is not ready, and that is the reason why it is not out.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the advantage of getting a Minister who will really tell you what is happening. But
what is this formula? It contains the whole substance of the distribution. Who is to get the money? How is it to be distributed? There is only one thing that we know at present, and that is that the industries that are to be de-rated to the extent of three-fourths are transport and agriculture. That is all that we know. How is the money to be distributed afterwards? It is to be a formula, on the basis of a formula, and that formula not ready. When it is ready, it will be the least ready of all, because it has to he submitted to the local authorities to be reconsidered. We were assured, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary last night, in a speech that I read with great satisfaction—I wish I had been here to listen to it—that it was very possible and very likely that the scheme which went to the local authorities would not be the one that would come out of the mangle, that it would come out in a different form. So it will.
It is a bad scheme, and it will come out different, but what I want to know is why it should he submitted to the local authorities before being submitted to the House of Commons. If you had consulted the local authorities beforehand, and obtained their views on the matter, and come to a conclusion upon the advice they gave you, and then submitted it to the House of Commons, that would have been in accordance with practice, but you first come to the House of Commons and say: "Give us £29,000,000 to spend on rates. We have not a ghost of an idea how we are going to spend it, but we have got a formula, or at least we will have one, when the dog days are over." That is not treating the House of Commons respectfully. We have been trying to get information, but it is like extracting a rotten tooth—every little bit of anything we get out of them—and it is rotten enough. What is the real reason? They are not agreed at the present moment as to distribution. Why do I say that? I have just been reading their speeches. I am really like a man trying to decipher hieroglyphics. I have read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and re-read it, and read it again, and I have read the speech of his colleague there, to try and find out, with such intelligence as I possess and with
some elementary knowledge of rating, and, as far as I can see, there has been a change already.
The first idea, as far as I can see, was this: You are going to take three-fourths off the rates of productive enterprise, and the gap was to be replenished in every local authority area. If you tool £50,000, say, from ore particular area and gave £50,000 relief to productive enterprises there there would be £50,000 less for that area, and there was to be a cheque from the Exchequer to make it up. That was the first impression created; I do not say that that was the first scheme. Why do I say that? The right hon. Gentleman was rather prepared to challenge what my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said upon that subject, but I will call his attention to what he himself said in the House of Commons in the first speech that he made on this subject:
The local authority must be assured that it is not going to he the worse by reason of any lost; of rating value brought about by this scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1928; col. 1154, Vol. 216.]
What that means to an average man is that if you are going to take £50,000 away from the rates paid by a certain section of ratepayers, £50,000 will be paid to that rating authority by the Treasury. There is no other meaning to it. Someone gave to me the brief of the party opposite, "With the compliments of the Conservative and Unionist Central Office, Press Department." It gives the points of this Budget, and it just emphasises the matters to which, they say, attention should he called, and one of the things to which they call attention is this:
The relief of productive industry will not involve any additional burden whatever upon the other classes of ratepayers. On the contrary, as it is the intention that the total grants from the National Exchequer should more than cover the compensation to local authorities for their loss of rates and should include an additional grant of now money to inaugurate the system, then will be a large balance of reduction in rates all over the country.
What does that mean? If it means anything, it means that in no particular area will the ratepayers be damnified by the proposals of the Government, that so far from there being a reduction as the result of their scheme of operations,
whatever it is—formula, this Bill, the Bill that is going to be brought forward in the autumn—so far from there being a loss, they will be better off. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that; he said they would be no worse off. That was the original idea, and that is the way it went out, and how it is expounded on thousands of platforms as the result of these instructions from the Conservative Central Office. That was not the scheme expounded by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. If I am wrong, he must not blame me. Why does he not give me the formula? I cannot understand it. Let him publish it; let us have a look at it. The right hon. Gentleman says, "That is not the way. I am going to pool all these grants—health grants, assigned revenues, compensation grants, and I am going to re-distribute that amount in accordance with the formula." What does that mean? He said specifically that part of the compensation grant might be withdrawn, that part of the grant might go from other areas to necessitous areas. He is going to take into account population, need, poverty and the burden of rates in a particular area; he is going to take them into account when he comes to re-distribute.
If he does that, there must be areas that will be worse off than they are at the present moment. Otherwise, there are only one or two alternatives. I will give them. The first is that the special grants for the necessitous areas will not be very substantial. But the right hon. Gentleman has used the word "substantial." He said that there will be substantial relief for the necessitous areas—not for the industries there, but for the areas. If it be a small grant, it might very well be within the limit of that £3,000,000 to manipulate it. It will not produce very much of an impression, for the simple reason that he wants to use that for the purpose of equalising the rates when he begins to unify large areas. Not only that, but when he gives a black grant, he knows that year by year there is an automatic growth, and that in a very short time his £3,000,000 will be more than absorbed. So he cannot use that, and I ask him how is he going to give an exceptional grant? I see that Ministers are smiling, but why do they not tell us? How can one in-
terpret these smiling answers? Why do they not tell us what it is that they are going to do? My district will be pretty much in the position that hundreds of other districts will be. I can hardly call the district which I represent a necessitous area, but there are hundreds of districts like it that will not come within that description. Where they are at the present moment receiving assigned revenues and health grants, they will have three-quarters of the rates of industries taken away; and if they do not get a cheque for what is lost, the rates in those particular areas will go up.
We are really entitled to know if that is the case. The Ministry have no right to ask for Second Readings of their Finance Bill and their Rating and Valuation Bill in order to carry out a great scheme which they will not condescend to explain to the House of Commons. Where is the money to come from? £3,000,000 is all the money which is to be used for equalisation purposes. That will not do it. What will happen? Let me point out what will happen in areas which are not necessitous—and we ought to thank God that the majority of the areas in this country are not necessitous. There are very bad necessitous areas, but, on the whole, the majority of the constituencies are not in that plight. What would happen in those areas? If any part of these grants are taken away, certain ratepayers will have their rates put up, but there will be other ratepayers more prosperous who will have three-quarters of their rates paid for them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that there were prosperous industries, and these are the industries in the prosperous areas which will get £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and in these very areas there 'will be struggling tradesmen who can hardly make both ends meet; their rates will go up. We are really entitled to know what the Government are proposing.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes in with a bigger grant, in order to fill up that gap, let him say so. Let me point out to him what will force him to give more money: it is that he has committed himself to a vicious principle. It would have been quite unnecessary had it not been for that. I urge the Government to abandon this dilatory, complicated and inequitable plan, and
to use the money to carry out the scheme of relieving hard pressed industries; but let them do it with a simple and more direct scheme. They are entitled to ask what I mean, and I am prepared to give the answer. I do not think anybody has the right, when a scheme like this is being discussed across the Floor of the House, not to give the benefit of whatever advice and counsel he has got What I say is that you ought to deal with the urgent evil first, and deal with it urgently. In the main, the urgency of the problem is the Poor Law. If the House will permit me, I will give certain figures which are, I think, very striking, in order to show this. Take the county of Durham. I can take a great many cases from South Wales, but I think that they were quoted yesterday. The growth in outdoor relief in Durham is something which is perfectly appalling. It is the result of unemployment, and of the methods adopted by the Minister of Labour under pressure from the Treasury to drive people from unemployment relief on to the Poor Law. The unemployment benefit is quite inadequate to maintain a family, and therefore men are bound to resort to the Poor Law to save themselves from slow starvation.
See what is happening to the county of Durham. In 1913–14, the whole cost of outdoor relief was £97,861. I have only the figures for 1925–26; they have gone up since, I believe, very considerably. In 1925–26 it was £1,257,000. Unless I am mistaken, it has reached the region of £1,500,000 now. You can take individual cases. Take the case of Gateshead, where in 1913–14 outdoor relief cost only £5,864. In 1925–26 it cost £255,293. In Merthyr Tydvil, the amount spent on relief is larger than the whole of the rate raised. There are two or three cases of that kind in South Wales. They cannot do it within even a rate of, I think, 25s. in the £ and upwards. What do they do? They have to go to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who has appointed a Committee to consider the matter, and they are given borrowing powers; and I think that their borrowing runs to something like £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 in those areas. I will not give more figures, but I will give the Chancellor this. He must not get angry when I give him suggestions; I mean it all for his good. If he were to deal with this problem now, with
the money he has in his pocket, he would find an automatic method of discriminating between necessitous areas and the rest. Why do I say that? He could work in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1925—the Rating and Valuation Act. I do not know that that Act established any new principle, but it established a much better method; it clarified certain principles which were established in British law, and it got rid of many entanglements. It provided for a revaluation, and what was happening in that revaluation? I called attention to it before in this House. What was happening in this valuation was this. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who made an exceedingly able speech yesterday, called attention to what was going on. The valuation, there is no doubt, in these depressed areas, is very much too high. What is the principle of valuation? It is the old principle of the Elizabeth Act, and I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is an antiquated and obsolete idea. It is not at all a bad way of arriving at an assessment, if it is adapted to modern ideas, and the right hon. Gentleman did that fairly well in the Act of 1925. You base your assessment upon the rent which a hypothetical tenant would pay for a colliery, a mill, a factory or a business.

Mr. MacLAREN: A vicious system!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot enter into an argument with my hon. Friend now. It is the system of the hypothetical rent. You deduct repairs, rates and royalties, and any charges, and then you arrive at the rent which a man can pay for that concern in its present condition of the business.

Mr. MacLAREN: It may be ruination.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What does that mean? It means that if you have got depression in an industry which has been going on for years, that a colliery is not paying, that, a textile factory is not paying, they would not be paying the same rent for it. Therefore, they can get a reduction from an assessment committee under the existing law. I hope I have stated that fairly. That process is going on, as the Minister of Health knows. One great business has had its rateable value reduced from £105,000 to £47,000. I gave the case of Dorman,
Long's last time. There are reductions in rateable value varying from 25 per cent. up to 80 per cent., and it is right that there should be. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health were to apply the cash which is in their possession now—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, about £15,000,000, with the surplus which he has got over from last year, and even deducting the loss of the kerosene duty he has got somewhere about £11,000,000—if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to apply that sum of money to taking over the whole burden of outdoor relief and if, in conjunction with that, the Bill of 1925 were allowed to operate, you would automatically reduce the burdens on the necessitous areas from one end to the other. What is still more, where the necessity was greatest, where the burden was heaviest, there would the contribution be the greatest. I do not mean to say that there would not be rich men who would get it, but if you have got a principle which applies to a whole area it is perfectly right that everybody there should have a fair share of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Brewers?"] Everybody in the necessitous areas. If there is a brewery in a necessitous area, or if there is any other business, and you are going to reduce rates in that area, it is fair that it should share in the reduction. What I object to is reducing the rates of the brewer by three-quarters, and leavin the publican without a penny reduction in his rates. I put it to the two right hon. Gentlemen that they should allow this process to go on, and should apply the principle which will give relief where the burden is heaviest.
Now let me point out the advantages. The first advantage is you could do that immediately, that there would be no loss of time in the necessitous areas. What is the second advantage? The relief would be given fairly. You would also have ample time for your full scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have spent all his money; I believe he would have a balance of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 afterwards, which would enable the Minister of Health to deal with the local authorities. I quite see the force of the Minister's contention that when he goes to the local authorities he must have something with which to bargain. He will not be able to put through his
unifying scheme unless, to use a phrase of Mr. Birrell's, he can make it swim in butter. There will be a good many firkins of butter left after the £15,000,000 has already gone. He will have £14,000,000 for the purpose of enabling him to negotiate with the local authorities. There will be immediate relief to the extent of £15,000,000, and £14,000,000 for the purpose of putting through his scheme. I commend that to him. The process of valuation should go on—and it will not go on now. When I said that the assessment committees would not reduce these valuations as long as they knew that three-quarters was to come from the Treasury, the Minister of Health said I was making an unfair attack on assessment committees. I was not. They will be considering their localities. They are not judicial committees, in the ordinary sense of the term. It is a representative committee, which consider all the interests of the locality, and if they know that when they reduce assessments largely they will lose half the grant from the Exchequer they are not going to revalue. The fact of the matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown gold sand into the machinery of revaluation, and that is going to stop it. If this suggestion were carried out, he would have his process of revaluation, and the expense would be less upon the Treasury, and, further, he would avoid a sense of injustice as between one ratepayer and another.
Hon. Members laughed about the brewers. They may say what they like, but this will rankle—that you are giving to an industry which makes a profit of £24,500,000, though before the War it was making less than £10,000,000, a sum of £400,000, and are leaving out the distributive trades, leaving out the baker, the grocer and the householder. That is bound to cause a sense of injustice. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very angry because I referred to Courtauld's firm. I was only referring to it in this sense, that there you have another contrast. There is a great manufacturer—turning out a commodity—doing it with very great success——amassing for his shareholders great fortunes. He has not asked for this—I am not blaming him—I am certainly not making an attack upon him—this is not his idea, it is not
his proposal—and he represents shareholders. His concern will get thousands, while struggling tradesmen who are retailing his goods and who can hardly make both ends meet will get nothing. That will create a sense of injustice, of unfairness, whereas if you had a scheme that would operate fairly and under which the money would percolate to the industrial areas, to the necessitous areas, in proportion to their burdens, then it would be felt that at any rate you were acting on a principle which operated quite fairly, and those which stood most in need would not merely get the most but would get it most quickly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gets very angry because I criticise him. I cannot help it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not get angry; I only reply.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, no, you do not; you get very angry. If know the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He digs up my past, forgetting that it is also his own. He talks about Limehouse. Did he hear the specimens of Limehouse read yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)? Very good stuff! I call it "Latinised Limehouse." He even introduced the coupon. What on earth have coupons to do with it? Besides, I want to tell him there are hon. Friends of mine here who have a grievance about that. He has none. He was in it. He got the advantage of it. He exhausted its full value for four years, and then, when all the value was exhausted, worked out, he sought his profit elsewhere. He has no right to hurl those things at me. When he comes to strategy—well, the less he says about that the better. I will not carry that any further. He produced a little camera picture of me which I did not quite recognise. He said I acted by instinct, and, I think, agility. Let me tell him that I think it is better to go on instinct than impulse. After all, instinct is a compound of experience and common sense, with a dash of agility. Impulse is all agility, and no common sense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confounds the two. His impetuosity here has landed his party, has landed the country, in a very difficult position. It has made it difficult for his colleague to negotiate with
the local authorities to find out what is the best method. He ought to be free to do it. We have saved him from the kerosene duty. He ought to be grateful to us; and not only that, but he certainly ought to have greater confidence in our counsel when we tell him about the rest. I have predicted to him that he will have to give way about this matter outstanding until 1st October. He will. He will have to give way on that. I am convinced of it. He will have to rive way upon these discriminations—to a very large extent. He can only save himself from these discriminations, which will fetter his colleague, by an enormously larger grant from the Exchequer. I say in all sincerity that in order to settle this urgent problem the House of Commons ought to demand that the Minister of Health should be given a free hand for that purpose, when he comes face to face with the representatives of the great local authorities of this country, who have to deal with these troubles at their own doors.

6.0 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I need scarcely say that I shall not venture to intervene in the controversies which arise between my two right hon. Friends. Where two such excellent swordsmen are engaged, it would be a great pity for anybody to interfere to spoil the fight which we all enjoy witnessing. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on having made a speech on rates which has afforded us some entertainment, and on winding up with a peroration which exhibits a profound conviction as to the demerits of this particular plan. For myself, I am glad of the opportunity to give my support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Minister of Health in the projects which they have put before the House. It is a good thing that this afternoon we have had certain and definite adherence given by my right hon. Friend to what, I think, is now causing some headshakings on the Labour benches. We have had it explicitly stated that action is required in order to reduce rates in this country, because they are a serious burden on industry. My right hon. Friend has recalled that he has in this House frequently drawn attention to the parlous state of our basic industries,
and that he has been taking this action for the last few years. On all those occasions it has been my privilege to give him my support, and I am sure that the spirit of conviction which animated his speech must have made the House thoroughly aware of the great difficulties from which our industries are suffering by reason of the heavy burden of the rates.
Accepting that premise of the argument I will ask the House to consider seriously what it is we are required to do. My right hon. Friend has indicated two reasons for dealing with these particular difficulties, and I will suggest two others. In an industrial country like ours, whose whole existence depends upon the prosperity of our trade, surely it is a false principle of rating that we should put a burden on the means of production in our workshops. The extraordinary thing is that the more expensive the equipment you employ for the production of your goods the more highly you are rated, and the greater becomes the burden of the rates on the industry. I think the proposals of the Government will do something to mitigate a difficulty of that kind. There is another difficulty which, I think, we ought to endeavour to meet. We have a system of rating which is very unequal under which some industries are driven away from their natural habitat to other districts where the burdens are less heavy. We ought to do something to get rid of such an anomaly as that. I think the proposals of this Bill will do something to alleviate that trouble.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, however, finds great difficulties in the particular proposals of the Government. I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and, as far as I can gather, he has been mainly occupied making prophecies of evil which may never eventuate. In the first part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that the Minister of Health could by no possibility have his scheme at work within the period allowed for that purpose. I am not prepared, simply upon the ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman, to accept that point of view, and I do not feel any wavering courage
as to the possibility of putting the Government plan into operation. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress upon the delay that would be caused by difficulties of interpretation. I myself have been frequently concerned in the Law Courts in discussing the meaning of particular phrases in the law dealing with valuation cases. Under the old Valuation Acts I know that there are many things which are as difficult to interpret as anything which appears in the Bill we are discussing, and the Courts of Law are quite capable of dealing with anything which may arise under this Bill when it becomes law, and will be able to clear up any difficulties which may arise.
The next thing upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs laid stress was the fact that the Minister of Health was not prepared to bring forward his formula. The right hon. Gentleman is really asking the Government, during the discussion of the second Bill of the series, to produce a formula which arises entirely under the third Bill which we shall see in October. Surely it will be the proper time to deal with that subject when we reach the third Bill, and it seems irrelevant at the present stage to ask for the production of a formula which does not concern the Bill we are discussing. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is really in too great a hurry, and he has no reason whatever to be in a hurry, because it is only old men who are entitled to be in a hurry. [An HON. MEMBER: "And impulsive."] An hon. Friend of mine suggests that the right hon. Gentleman may be too impulsive in seeking to get that formula now.
The right hon. Gentleman has made an alternative suggestion to the proposals which are contained in this Bill. I do not feel competent to answer my right hon. Friend upon that matter for this reason, that I have only heard it for the first time, and I am not quite sure that I follow what he is proposing. I find difficulty in understanding how the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with a colliery on his proposed basis of a hypothetical rent, because a colliery is rated to some extent on an output basis, and from that point of view I think the scheme suggested by my right hon. Friend would fail.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I suggested that the present law should be allowed to proceed under the machinery set up by the Act of 1925, which was proposed by the Minister of Health.

Sir R. HORNE: On that basis it would take quite as much time to get a readjustment of the valuations as under the scheme we are now considering. My right hon. Friend has not suggested anything which would expedite the relief which we all desire to see put into operation as soon as possible. I feel some sympathy with the point of view that we shall have to wait too long if we delay the whole proceedings until October next. Two nights ago I put forward a point of view, which I regret to find that the Minister of Health entirely misapprehended. He appeared to find some inconsistency in the action which I took during the Budget Debate and what I said a few nights ago. In the Budget Debate I pointed out it was an error to suppose that, owing to the fact that the relief does not come into operation until next October, no benefit would be given meanwhile. I indeed suggested that a certain stimulus would be given to industry by reason of the fact that the relief offered would be anticipated in making large contracts and in obtaining finance, but I never meant to suggest that the result would be as good by anticipation as it would be if the relief were given at once. That is where the Minister of Health misunderstood me.
I proposed two nights ago that there should be given now that relief in railway rates and railway freights which was contemplated to be offered to industries which are overburdened in this country at the present time. In the main these are the coal trade and the iron and steel trade. As I pointed out, I was not then suggesting that the coal carried for ordinary purposes for sheltered trades should obtain the relief, but only that the coal carried for the purposes of iron and steel works and for export should have the reduction in order that the coal trade might receive a stimulus which it so much requires at the present time. How would that work out As far as I can estimate the results, it would mean in the ease of coal for export something like 8d. per ton. Hon. Members are aware that a relief of 8d. per ton on coal
at the present time would be an enormous help in competition with our rivals in such markets as the Argentine where we are now competing under the greatest possible difficulties. I think the Minister of Health will now understand the position I have taken up, and I urge the Government to take this question into their most serious consideration, because I believe that in this way we could confer an immediate benefit upon those industries which at the present moment are in a crippled condition and most in need of help.
I pass from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said with this remark. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that of all Bills which could have been produced for this particular purpose this is the worst. That is not a view universally held in his party. I have here a quotation from a letter which Mr. E. D. Simon, the vice-chairman of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry, wrote to the "Manchester Guardian" in which he expressed the conviction that he thought Mr. Churchill is on the right line and has developed an idea which ought to be carried through as against what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has put before the House. I think that is an opinion to which we may attach some weight.

Mr. HARNEY: What Mr. Simon said in his letter was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recognised the evil and had made proposals in that direction, but he never commended the particular method suggested in this Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: I wanted to save the time of the House by summarising the quotation, but as it has now been challenged, I will read the actual quotations from Mr. Simon's letter:
Mr. Churchill is to be congratulated on having tackled an exceedingly important problem with characteristic courage vision. Mr. Churchill's speech contains an admirable statement of the unfairness of the present rating system and the main proposal …. is one which should be heartily welcomed by all Liberals.

Mr. HARNEY: That quotation precisely bears out my memory of Mr. Simon's words. Mr. Simon commended the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to tackle this evil, but
he did not say that he commended the method of tackling the problem which is proposed in the Measure we are discussing.

Sir R. HORNE: I am glad that I have now got the adherence of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) to what I have read, and if he acts on the principle there stated I hope we shall find him in the Lobby along with us. Now I pass to the speech which was made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). As far as I can understand his position it differs from that taken up yesterday by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member recognises that changes must be made in the rating system if industry is to make any advance in this country, but he took exception to our particular form of relief for one main reason, which was that our plan while relieving industry does nothing to relieve the householder or the shop owner. So far as I can make out, that was the hon. Member's main contention. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne also complained that prosperous industries were going to be relieved as well as those which were depressed, but he omitted to notice that a large proportion of the money which would be given in relief of rates in the case of prosperous business must come back to the Exchequer in the shape of the Income Tax. Nothing could be more difficult than to attempt to create a distinction between prosperous industries and those which are depressed, am; nothing would be more impossible than to make a discrimination of that kind in a Rating Bill. Just as the hon. Member for Nelson said that it was impossible to define a necessitous area, so I think it will be found to be impossible to make any really accurate definition of the kind of businesses which would obtain this relief if it were sought to follow that method of discrimination.
With regard to the idea that the householder is being badly treated in this matter, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the facts of the situation. The hon. Member for Nelson said that, if the householder were relieved of three-fourths of his rates, it
would be a magnificent thing for the country. But how much money would that require? If this relief of rates to the extent of three-fourths were to be spread over the whole area of the Kingdom, it would require £130,000,000, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any theory as to how he is going to raise £130,000,000 for this purpose. The suggestion is so fantastic that I do not think one need worry very long over it, but I should like to add that the householder in the end gets a part of the great benefits that industry obtains from a relief of rates. Suppose that the situation is, as my right hon. Friend said, that many industries are struggling and may go out of being if their condition continues as it is at the present time. The problem for the householder is whether he would like to have relief as regards his rates and no employment, or whether he would like to see industry relieved in order that he may get employment; and, under this alternative, I cannot imagine any citizen of this country giving any but one answer. He is going to reply, "Do something for the industry on which my livelihood depends, and from which I obtain the employment which sustains me and my family in life." Accordingly, it seems to me that that class of argument completely fails.
A very different speech was made from the Labour Front Bench yesterday. As far as I personally am concerned, it was a speech which attacked me with a ferocity which is really unusual, even for a person whose language is not generally very amiable in criticism. Personally, I think that there is nothing so withering in public life as not to be noticed at all, and accordingly I welcome the attentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), even though in passing he does not give you a friendly wave of his hand, but rather takes the line of throwing a knife after you. He said of me that I was a contemptible spectacle as a business man coining into this House, as I did two nights ago, to ask for assistance in my business. That is the picture that he put before the House.

Mr. BROAD: He also said that that is the only time you come.

Sir R. HORNE: He did not quite say that, but it is a pity that this misappre-
hension should be fermenting in the tormented breast of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is right that I should relieve him. In point of fact, I am not here in formâ pauperis, as he said, to ask for benefit for any industry with which I am concerned. None of the businesses with which I am concerned is in any difficulty at all. What I did was to venture to appeal for the sympathy of the House for the great basic industries of this country, of which I named three —coal, iron and steel, and shipbuilding, in none of which am I personally concerned—and I do not think that any of these industries deserve the derision which was heaped upon them by the right hon. Gentleman. I should have expected from him some sympathy with these industries in the condition in which they are, but there was no sympathy in his heart. He ventured to suggest—in fact, he did more than suggest, he stated—that this was the cry of the private establishments, private enterprise having failed—

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not that true?

Sir R. HORNE: So far from its being true, the situation is this. The private enterprises in this country are suffering more than anything else from the burdens which the State has been piling upon them year after year, until they are now bearing a load which is incomparably greater than is borne by industry in any other country that is their competitor. Their situation to-day is due to the fact that they are suffering in this way, and not to the considerations about which the right hon. Gentleman talked; and the people who are filching their trade away are not Socialistic countries, but other private establishments in other countries where the conditions of industry are easier. The only Socialistic country that I know of which is conducting business is Russia, and the only export trade that the Russians can really maintain with success is a trade in oil, which they have made successful by having stolen all the money that has been spent in developing those fields.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that what these industries to which I have referred were suffering from was incompetence and mismanagement. I am not going to say that any business in this country is perfectly managed, or that you could not find some reason for criticism,
but, when people begin to look at the condition of these industries, and say that their equipment is out of date, and that if you go to America or Germany you see machinery which is much more efficient, they forget that the main reason why the equipment of industry is not so good in this country is that we have taken away so much of the resources of these companies by the burdens imposed upon them that they have no money to spend upon it. The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech with a statement that the industries of this country were coming here to take money out of other people's pockets. Who are the other people? It is very like the right hon. Gentleman to imagine industry as something apart from the life of the country, contributing nothing to its support and benefit; but what is the reason for the prosperity of this country? Why are we even in the position in which we stand to-day? Is it not because of the work of industry in the past, and the money which it has contributed to the State? When it is said that industry is coming here to pick someone else's pockets, I ask, whose pockets? Is it the pockets of the professional politician? Are those the pockets that industry is to pick?
The real fact is that industry is only coming here to ask for a slight relief out of the vast sums, the overwhelming sums, which it has contributed in the past to the country. I have not the slightest doubt that, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health goes into the figures he mill be able to show that, in comparison with what has been done for industry by local authorities, industry has in face been very much over-rated, and that on general merits alone, apart from the present time of depression, something should be taken off its burdens. The right hon. Gentleman says that the rates form no burden. His words are as explicit as anything could be. It is true that a hedging speeds has been made to-day by the hon. Member for Nelson, but here is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
First of all as to the burden of rates. There are few things about which more nonsense is talked than about the burden of rates. Rates are not in themselves a burden at all.
I venture to say—

HON. MEMBERS: Read on!

Sir R. HORNE: Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make my speech in my own way. I venture to say that that is a complete change from everything that the Labour party has been advocating for a number of years. One thinks of the deputations from trade unions on this question of rates. There was one not very long ago from the miners of South Wales, asking for a relief of rates as a first necessity. Innumerable speeches have been made in this House in my hearing by Labour Members in which the same proposal has been reiterated times without number, and I venture to say that, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went through his speeches during the last three years, he would find constant repetition of the statement that rates are a far greater burden than taxes in this country, and that the first thing to do is to get the rates down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, no doubt, went on to say that the incidence is wrong, but how does he propose to cure that? [Interruption.] I will read the passage if hon. Members desire it.

HON. MEMBERS: Read!

Sir R. HORNE: Here is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
When people opposite talk about the burden of rates, when at meetings of the Federation of British Industries"—

Mr. MARDY JONES: Read from where you left off!

Sir R. HORNE: Am I to read all the speech? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said:
What constitutes the so-called burden of rates"—
I am reading the passage from where I left off—
What constitutes the so-called burden of rates, as I believe I said yesterday, is the unfair incidence. I might take an analogy between indirect and direct national taxation. Some of our national taxes fall with much heavier weight upon certain classes than they do upon others. That is what is wrong with our local rating system. The incidence is not equal. It is not fair.
I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to cure the unfairness.
The burden of rates falls with different weight upon different classes of local ratepayers.
Supposing that it does, does that in any way dispute the fact that rates are a burden upon industry? He went on:
I say that it is nonsense to talk about the burden of rates as rates. Rates are just as much an essential part of the costs of production as wages, and far more so than rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; cols. 195–6, Vol. 218.]
I agree with that view, but what I wish to ask hint is this. Perhaps, as a single taxer, his reply will be enlightening. Does he say that an increase of rent is a burden upon industry? He says that rates are a heavier cost than rent. I ask him, if rents are increased, is not that a burden upon industry? Is not the main contention that comes from the benches opposite that rents must be relieved in order that industry may prosper? If rates are worse for industry than rents, obviously the case with regard to rates is proved out of the right hon. Gentleman's own mouth. These burdens must be admitted by everybody at the present time in this country to represent an enormous increase in costs. I am putting it like that in order to put it to the right hon. Gentleman in the way that he wishes. They represent an enormous increase in costs, which comes into the price, and makes it more difficult to compete with others who have not these high costs. Accordingly, it is obvious, however you express it, that rates form a very great burden on the industry of this country, and the higher they are the greater is the cost of running our industries. Surely, that will be accepted by everyone in this House, no matter where they sit.
If the House will forgive me for just three more minutes, I wish to put into proper perspective the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He asks what will be the benefit of this scheme. Take the case of coal, which is one of the depressed industries. The average rates on coal amount, he says, to only 3d. per ton over the whole country, and he asks how it would relieve any distress to take off three-fourths of that. That is the most fallacious way in which that question could be put, and for this reason, that, if you take the average, it means that there are some people whose rates are below 3d. per ton of coal, and others whose rates are much higher, and if you look at the higher—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks, what is the
good of remitting rates which amount to 3d. per ton of coal? I say it is this, that the cases where the rates are below 3d. per ton are in districts in which unemployment is not severe, in which, indeed, there may be none at all; while the cases in which the rates are high are where the district is depressed, and in depressed districts these rates represent to-day as much as 11d. per ton of coal. While three-fourths of a rate below 3d. is, I agree, of very little moment in the price of coal, if you take three-fourths of 11d. you get a figure of 8d. per ton, which is a very material factor.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the districts where the rates are as high as 11d.?

S it R. HORNE: I have no doubt I can get the information. It was given by the President of the Board of Trade on the second day of the Budget Debate. The precise figure was 10¾d. As soon as you come to look at what is being done under the Bill, you see that in the districts where depression is great, and where the rates form the greatest factor in the price, you will do a great service in relieving that rate.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned steel, and said, what is the good of helping steel by a remission of rates? The figure the President of the Board of Trade gave with regard to the amount in the price of steel that was represented by the rates was 4s. 1d. a ton. I think that is rather a low figure, but, even taking it at 4s. 1d. on the average, a remission of 3s. in the ton on steel is quite a factor at present. But, of course, it is a far bigger thing when you come to the depressed districts, because there are districts where the rate applicable to the price of a ton of steel has gone up by 17s. to 18s., and if you take three-quarters of that you are obviously getting to a point where it may make all the difference whether you get a contract or whether you do not. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason why in some districts the amount of the rates to the price of a ton of steel was very high was because the output was low, and I perfectly agree, but why is the output low? It is because of the difficulty of getting orders, and the orders are not coming because the prices are too high, and the prices are high because the rates are high, and the
more you bring down the rates the more chance you have of getting orders. I therefore entirely fail to understand the point of view of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, come to the House and say—whet her he is prepared or not now to say he meant something different from the precise expression he used—that rates are no burden on industry, but the whole line of his argument, and all the illustrations I have given, show that what he was endeavouring to prove was that it was not worth while to do what we are proposing to do. I take exactly the contrary point of view, and I shall be prepared with the greatest possible confidence to go to any of the districts that are suffering at present and put the right hon. Gentleman's point of view to them as to whether it is one in which they would have any confidence or which they would support. I only wish to say further that I know a spectacle more contemptible than a business man trying to tell the House of Commons what he honestly believes about the state of trade, and that is a politician who turns his back upon everything his party has been saying for the last two years because he fears that the proposals contained in these projects are going to endanger his political prospects.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Measure we are now discussing is the Government's prescription for private enterprise in industry in its present desperate situation. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has followed the example of other speakers in assuring us that private enterprise can scarcely be relied on to exist unless it receives relief before October, 1929. The patient is evidently in a desperate situation, and he told us two evenings ago that unless the relief came earlier than October, 1929, it might be too late. To-day he has tried to obliterate the impression he left on the House when he last addressed it, because he told us that if private enterprise were only given a chance by the State, and got assistance from the State, it would still prove what a wonderful instrument it is in bringing about national prosperity.

Sir R. HORNE: I know the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to misrepresent me, but I have said nothing different from what I said two nights ago. I suggested that relief should be granted
immediately to coal, iron and steel, and I still hold that view. I am not now asking anything in the way of assistance from the State. All I am saying is that the industries that are at present depressed should be relieved of the undue burdens put upon them by the State, which is a totally different thing.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman said two evenings ago that unless relief were given to our basic industries before October of next year, the relief might be too late to save those basic industries. He tells us to-day that all that these basic industries require is to have removed from them a few of the burdens they have to bear by the action of the State. For instance, he talked largely of steel and he referred frequently to coal, and he said the burdens on these industries were incomparably greater than they are in any other country. Those were his words. Let me remind him of some of the burdens that are on the industries in this country which are not on those in competing countries. He has reminded us that local rates place a burden of 4s. 1d. a ton on steel. He has not told us that debenture interest, which has not to be paid either in France or Belgium, our principal competitors, places a burden of 6s. a ton on the steel of this country. When he came to deal with coal he reminded us that the burden placed by local rates, on the average, on a ton of coal was 3d. He referred to some districts in which it was much greater. He represents a constituency in Scotland. The burden of local rates on coal in Scotland amounts only to 1¾d. a ton and the royalties, which even his own party condemn in moments of enthusiasm and industrial crisis, amount on the average to 6d., which is double the burden placed on the coal industry by local rates.
I want to deal to some extent with the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is really remarkable that, like the speech of the Minister of Health, the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland displayed no enthusiasm for the Measure before the House. He gave us a certain amount of information on the different system of rating in Scotland from that which obtains in England. It was his duty to enlighten the House on what has been and is being done in Scotland in the direction it is proposed to
take under the operations of this Measure. To some extent what is now being proposed has been tried in Scotland and has failed. We have the classification of industries under the Act of 1926, and we have a system of relieving industry. In Glasgow, at any rate, we have proceeded in this direction much more scientifically, if I might use a word that was bandied about a good deal yesterday, than is proposed in the Government scheme. We have relieved the rates where relief was most needed. In Scotland the steel trade is one of the industries that suffer most, and in Glasgow we have given the greatest amount of relief to the steel industry. The right hon. Gentleman did not inform the House that the steel trade in Glasgow is already relieved of local rates to the extent of 30 per cent., nor did he tell us —and it is essential that we should know this—what is proposed to be done with these reductions which have been made in the assessments in Glasgow when the present scheme comes into operation. For instance, a workshop engaged mainly in the manufacture of steel or wrought iron products has its valuation reduced by 30 per cent., which is equal to having its rates reduced by 30 per cent. The proposal in this Bill is that there should be a relief of rates to the extent of 76 per cent. You cannot have a relief of rates to the extent of 30Ter cent. plus 75 per cent., because that figure would amount to 105 per cent. are we to give them social services for nothing and change back? That is really the proposal as it appears to be just now. What I want to know, as a representative of Glasgow—and I think the right hon. Gentleman might have invited the information—is whether the 30 per cent. is to continue when the 75 per cent. comes into operation.
But the point I want to make is, that no one on the other side has claimed that the steel industry in the West of Scotland has substantially improved since the 30 per cent. relief of rates was granted. As a matter of fact, I should say the condition of the steel trade is much worse to-day than it was before this abatement was made. We are told by the Government and their supporters that a 75 per cent. remission in rates will put the steel trade on its feet in a healthy and strong position, but the fact remains that the 30 per cent. has
not even enabled it to rise from its sick bed. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) does not believe that an additional 45 per cent. reduction in local rates will have the desired effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already admitted that not more than £20,000,000 of the sum to be voted under this Bill will reach the struggling industries. I think few people will agree with him that even £20,000,000 will get to where assistance is most required. For the purpose of argument, I am prepared to agree that £30,000,000, to make it a round figure, will reach the productive industries of this country. Even if the whole sum does reach them, it cannot possibly make any appreciable impression upon the situation with which we are confronted at the present time.
What does this relief to the extent of £30,000,000 mean? The object is to reduce the costs of production, in order that we may be able to compete more successfully with our foreign rivals in the markets of the world. The costs of production have been reduced enormously during the past seven years. The wages bill alone has been reduced by £600,000,000 per annum. No one on the opposite side of the House will deny that wages are part of the costs of industry. To an extent of £600,000,000 a year the costs of industry have been reduced since 1920. We have in this country, speaking from memory, something like 12,000,000 workers who are under the insurance scheme. Their average reduction in wages during the seven years amounts to 20s. a week. The £600,000,000 taken from 12,000,000 people represents 20s. a week, each. The amount that is proposed to be granted, £30,000,000, is equal only to 1s. per week per insured person, and this House and the country are seriously asked to believe that where 20s. a week reduction in costs has failed to put industry on its feet, if you will only make the 20s. into a guinea, all will be well. Is it not a well known fact, and do not the discussions in this House, if nothing else, emphasise it, that industry has been going from bad to worse and every shilling taken from the costs of production has not during these seven years revealed any improvement in consequence? Are we seriously to be asked to believe that industry, which could not
revive by the process of taking 20s. from each worker per week, is going to be assured or a healthy and happy existence if we will only add another 1s. to the amount of relief?
The economic case showing the futility of this scheme is even stronger. The £30,000,000 that is to be granted is being provided by the State. Where will the State get the £30,000,000? From the taxpayers. Where will the taxpayers get the £30,000,000? They will get it from industry. There is no place else from which the £30,000,000 can be taken, and the House of Commons is seriously considering a scheme which proposes to relieve industry by taking £30,000,000 from it and handing back that £30,000,000. We are to relieve industry by a grant of £30,000,000 and the £30,000,000 is to be taken from industry itself. Seriously considered, the proposals only arouse a feeling of contempt in the minds of intelligent people. It is a mere matter of financial jugglery. We are asked to believe that with these millions being dangled before industry, somehow or other in 1930 or 1931 the terrible industrial problem that faces the country is to be relieved.
Compare what is being done here with what happened when industry was relieved to the extent of £600,000,000 on its wages bill. That £600,000,000 was a real grant to industry. That £600,000,000 was not given by the State. It was taken out of the stomachs of the workers and the stomachs of the dependants of the workers. They did not place a burden upon industry for the purpose of assisting industry. That £600,000,000 went as a free gift—if I may use the term of "free gift," to something that was taken forcibly from the poor—to industry, and industry was not taxed to repay in any way the losses to the working classes in respect of the £600,000,000 that had been taken. While the £600,000,000 which was given as a free gift to industry has not saved the basic industries from deterioration, the £30,000,000 which we are considering to-day is to be taken from industry in taxation because we are giving that sum to industry by way of subsidy.
The scheme is, obviously, a fraud, its promoters are either knaves or fools and the speeches that are being made in its support are sheer humbug. I have ad-
mitted, for the sake of argument, that the £30,000,000 will go to industry. It has been largely demonstrated to-day and on previous days that a very large hart el the money will never reach the necessitous workshops. Therefore, I will not pursue that line of argument. I will try to bring the House back to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In Scotland we have a different system of rating from that which obtains in England and Wales. As the right hon. Gentleman told the House roughly speaking, one-half of the rates are paid by the occupier and one-half by the owner. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the remission of 75 per cent. of owners' rates would be done in a way that would ensure that the relief would reach the tenant, but he qualified that statement by saying, "during the existence of the present leases." That means that if in regard to a workshop in Scotland—an important part of this point is that it applies largely if not entirely to small employers of labour and to people who have the greatest need of relief—the actual building is owned by one person and occupied by a manufacturer and the lease expires three months after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the 75 per cent. remission in rates granted to the property owner will not, so far as I could understand the Secretary of State for Scotland, reach the manufacturer for whom it is intended.
If I am wrongly interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I am sorry, and I will gladly give way for correction, but, as I understood him, when the present]eases or tenancies expire, the 75 per cent. remission of rates given to the property-owners as property-owners, not as manufacturers, will not go, by the terms he intends to insert in this Bill, to the manufacturer. That means that in all probability a considerable amount of this relief, as far as it is intended for small manufacturers, will go not to the small manufacturers, but will go into the pockets of the property-owners. How can any section of the House justify a proposal such as that? In Scotland we have long leases in land compared with England, but we have short leases in property, compared with England. In very many cases these little
workshops are held on annual tenancies, and in the majority of cases, at the best, they are from three to five years. Consequently, these leases are continually expiring, and as they expire the money that is being voted by this House for the aid of our necessitous industries will more and more find its way into the pockets of the property-owners. We are only wasting our time in this House in dealing with quack remedies for what is really a dangerous situation.
The remedies that have been proposed by the Government, if they are examined, are all directed towards improving production. Take the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. The idea was that if we could improve production in this country, we could settle the difficulties of the coal trade. The scheme now before us is in the same direction. The whole idea is that if we can only improve production, somehow or other we shall remove the problem of employment from the path of the industrial population of this country. That is an entirely wrong diagnosis of the industrial disease. There is nothing seriously wrong with production. Our powers of production are improving by leaps and bounds. I am told that in the steel trade, which the right hon. Gentleman is so fond of quoting, we are per man turning out 50 per cent. more than we turned out in 1913. How, then, can it be said that the problem that is facing us to-day is the problem of production, when our powers of production are improving marvellously? If you turn in any direction you find the most wonderful improvement in the power per man of producing goods. Our difficulty to-day is not production, and yet scheme after scheme is submitted to this House to provide a remedy for production, as if it were applicable to the present industrial situation.
7.0 p.m.
What we are troubled with is the lack of an adequate market for the goods that we produce. While our power of production is expanding, our power of selling goods is actually contracting. While we can turn out per man 50 per cent. more than we did in pre-War times, we cannot sell per man as much as we could sell in pre-War times. Unless the Government and all sections of this House realise that that is the real situation, we may land in chaos and arrive at a state that will
be disastrous to the country. It must be realised that it is markets that we want, if we propose to remedy the present industrial situation. We must view the matter from that standpoint. We want Measures that will attack the problem from that point, and attack it nationally and internationally, instead of this House devoting its time to these piffling proposals to relieve industry. Instead of it wasting its time in that way, if it devoted its time to a consideration of the best method of increasing the purchasing power of the people, the best method of increasing the world's purchasing power and the best method of preserving ourselves in a competitive system in the wonderful new and complicated situation which has arisen in recent years, then the country would have sound reason to be grateful to this House. But a Measure such as this, while it may to the ignorant mind seem something in the direction of relief, can only bring depression on the minds of the intelligent people, who are, after all, the people on whom this country must mainly rely. We are doing nothing here to improve our market, and it is an improvement of our market that is needed. Until we turn our minds, our brains and energies in that direction what possible hope is there for an escape from our difficulties? How can the right hon. Member for Hillhead argue that if we could really turn out a little more per man employed in the steel and coal trade, in that way the prosperity of this country would be assured? The only argument one can use in favour of that view is that, if you cheapen production in this country, you will be able to capture more orders in the limited markets of the world. Have you not tried that to an extent impossible under the present proposals? Have you not reduced the cost of production by £600,000,000 a year? Was not the only reason ever given for reducing the wages of the workers in this country, that it would enable you to sell cheaper in the markets of the world, would oil the wheels of industry, would absorb the unemployed and would restore us to the path of prosperity, on which it was alleged we were treading in pre-War years? That argument prevailed and you gave industrial relief to the extent of
£600,000,000 a year. Yet industry is worse off to-day than in 1920.
What happened? Only what you would, as intelligent people, expect inevitably to happen. Your rivals were compelled to follow your example. If your market was not extended, if there were no fresh consumers created by your policy, then you could only absorb your million unemployed by creating a million unemployed somewhere else, and the countries in which you have created a million unemployed have been driven by self-preservation to follow your methods. When you bring down wages, they bring clown wages. As far as your relativity in competition is concerned, you are exactly where you began. If you could not by reducing costs beat them with £600,000,000, how in Heaven's name do you hope to touch the situation at all with a further £30,000,000? If it does touch the situation, will they not have to do exactly the same thing? If you relieve your industries of rates and in that way give £30,000,000 to industry, will they not be compelled to relieve their industries of rates and thereby give their industries 30,000,000?
You have succeeded in reducing the purchasing power of the world, in diminishing the already limited market, and in creating a situation that is much worse than when you began to tackle it at all. That seems to me so clear, so obvious, that I cannot understand even people on the other side of the House failing to recognise it. What has happened? There are 1,000,000 unemployed. You are accepting them in your legislation as a permanent burden on industry. If your local rates are a burden on industry, your million unemployed are a burden on industry. Your unemployed rich are a burden on industry. Every penny worth consumed by every person, rich or poor, in this country must come from industry, and to that extent the consumer is a burden upon the industry of this country. You have 1,000,000 people unemployed, and you must have millions of people underworking because they are afraid of unemployment, afraid to put their backs into a job—except under the direct pressure of a boss—for fear that they should put themselves out of a job and in the ranks of the unemployed. You must have a great deal of that. The great managers
of industry, too, are not concentrating on the business of improving production, because their minds are engaged in trying to find markets for the goods they produce to-day. I know some of them. I know a manager of one of the large concerns on the Clyde who tells me that, instead of devoting his mind to management, he has to run to Birmingham and elsewhere to try to get an order or two for a few boilers.
All the intelligence of even your captains of industry is being wasted and dissipated because you are not facing this problem from the point of view of a market instead of production. It is not merely the workers who are losing in this. You are losing your capital, and you are bound to lose your capital unless this problem is solved. What is the value of the shares of some of these large industrial concerns in the West of Scotland? The right hon. Member for Hillhead would tell us that you can buy a 20s. share in Beardmore's firm for a few shillings. What does that mean? If the shares, which originally were 20s., are standing at 5s., it means that the shareholders in Beardmore's have already lost three-quarters of their capital. How long will it take them to lose the other quarter of their capital if things go on as they are to-day?
It does not only apply to Beardmore's and to the industry with which Beardmore's are connected. It applies to the coalfields of South Wales and Durham, and to every one of what are called the necessitous areas. We have a situation, then, of our workers being unemployed to the number of 1,000,000, a changing multitude, not always the same million but 1,000,000 people going in and out of the ranks of the unemployed, enduring poverty and enduring what is worse than poverty, hopelessness in outlook and in the future for their children. They have to endure that. There seems to be no way out of the difficulty. Other millions are working day by day not sure of what to-morrow will bring, doubtful whether their energies are not applied to their own injury, management being wasted, capital being lost, and all because, out of sheer prejudice, out of a foolish attachment to an obsolete economic system, the intelligence of this country refuses day by day to face the situation in an intelligent way.
In the highest sense of the term this should not be a political question at all. It is a national question, because what is happening here is going on in every industrialised part of the world, and if we are to avoid a crash, a catastrophe, then we will have to apply our intelligence to this very serious national problem. I agree with the right hon. Member for Hillhead that, unless we hurry up, we may be too late. But he is calling for the wrong medicine, because he has never been able to diagnose the disease. We may be accused of wishing for the destruction of capitalism and of capitalists, but before capitalism goes down or capitalists are obliterated, we want to see something in their place. Capitalism is collapsing to-day because of the operation of the system on which it is based, and the people who are witnessing that collapse are using all their power and influence to prevent us, while there is yet time, from putting in its place a system which will enable our country to continue even a moderate standard of prosperity.
What is going to happen in my constituency if Beardmore's is compelled through your competitive system to shut its gates next year, and to throw thousands of my people on the streets of Parkhead without any place in which there is hope for them to earn their daily bread? Am I not entitled to be anxious about this problem? It is not an economic one, it is no question of intellectual theories, but of life and death for thousands of men and women in the constituency I represent in this House. Knowing that, knowing the futility of this Measure, I am justified in saying that it is a waste of time, a, display of intellectual inbecility, that we should be here this afternoon discussing a Measure which is entirely useless for the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. FIELDEN: As a considerable portion of the Bill under discussion deals with the rating and assessment of railway companies, it may be perhaps appropriate that I should ask the House to grant me a few minutes to put the position of the railway companies in this matter. The principle of this Measure is one that is agreed to entirely by the railway companies, but the machinery that is proposed to bring about the assessment is such that we have some doubt in our minds as to whether it will
prove efficient and will bring about the result that is aimed at in a sufficiently short time to be really available. The object is to fix the basis of relief of certain classes of hereditaments from local rates, and it is provided that the proporties in question shall be distinct from others and valued separately. The provisions as to valuation are detailed and complicated, and would cost much time and much expense to work out. This rather nullifies the idea that the relief to railways should be rapidly passed on to the traders. The whole question of railway rating is in the melting-pot. The Bill of]925 contained provisions for rating of railways on a cumulative principle. These proposals were withdrawn, and it was understood that a measure would subsequently be introduced dealing with that question. The matter has been under consideration, and I believe a large measure of agreement has already been reached.
The proposals in the present Bill for a detailed valuation of particular hereditaments seem to conflict with the idea of the accumulated valuation. It is a fairly easy thing to separate the value of a building and the value of the land attached to that building or on which that building stands. But, when you come to divide the building itself into separate parts and say this belongs to transportation and that belongs to ware- housing, you come to a condition of things on which it is very difficult indeed to reach a conclusion. There is no doubt that the present proposals will, if they are to be carried out successfully, take a great deal of time and will also cause a, very great deal of expense. The railway companies, therefore, desire to reserve the right to propose Amendments in Committee which may be of a fundamental character after they have had a further opportunity of considering the effects of the Bill.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not propose to go into the various details of the Measure which is before the House, because what I would like to say has been well and eloquently said. If I were assured and convinced that this Measure would really relieve industry, I should be one of the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and follow him into the Division Lobby. In my opinion, the relief to industry ought not to be made
to apply to the employers and manufacturers. The real relief to industry ought to be applied to the rank and file of the producers, those who receive wages. After all the eloquence and all the time that has been spent in discussing this Bill, I am still unconvinced that a solitary workman engaged in industry will receive any benefit from these proposals. I contend that it cannot reasonably be said that the Bill is for the relief of industry. We have just had evidence of the direction in which the minds of His Majesty's Government and their supporters travel. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden) gave eloquent evidence of this. He candidly and honestly told us that he is in this House to promote the interests of the railway companies. He made a bold and most brutal statement, that he was instructed by the railway companies to come here and put their case. I want to ask the hon. Member whether he is convinced that, if the railway companies get all they ask, it will in any way affect a single man employed on the railways with regard to increasing his purchasing power. If I could be convinced of that, I should have no hesitation, as I said before, in supporting this Bill. Everything that has been said by Members on the opposite side has convinced me to the contrary. What amazed and surprised me more than anything else was the flippant manner in which the real source of the relief of industry was passed over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health.
We want to relieve the rates and to relieve localities. I want as far as possible to avoid repetition, but I must hark back to one question—the rating of land values. It has been generally discussed in this House, and I have never heard an intelligent answer in opposition to it. I want to give a case in point. It is one that occurs to me, and one with which I am perfectly well acquainted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) gave an instance where land was brought for the purpose of railway construction at £1,000,000 per acre. It is within my recollection that the neighbourhood where £1,000,000 were paid for an acre of land
was semi-rural sixty years ago, and that the full agricultural value of the land at 20 years purchase was not more than £80 per acre. Not long ago we paid £350 per square yard for land to make an opening for the tunnel, and the same land in 1835 was only worth, on an annual agricultural valuation, £4 per acre. The annual rateable value of Liverpool—I cannot give the exact figures—amounts to something like £4,000,000. The total land values increased by the industry of the employers and the workmen of Liverpool who are so fined in local rates is unknown, but, estimated on a similar basis, it is about £30,000,000. I will put Liverpool next to Glasgow and call it £20,000,000, if you like, and that is a very modest estimate to make. Two shillings in the £ off taxation on £20,000,000 in respect of land which was originally only worth about £80 per acre would reduce the taxation of Liverpool by 50 per cent. Employers would he able to give better terms, better wages and provide better houses for workmen if they were relieved of the local rates.
Not very long ago in connection with the extension of the city a narrow strip of land no wider than this Chamber was required from the estate of a Noble Lord in order to lay down a line of tramways on grass. The area did not amount to more than three acres. The annual value of the land was something like £3 per acre, but for that narrow strip of land, in order to lay the lines on grass, we had to pay £7,000. The extension of the tramways created a demand for land on either side, and the annual value of that land, which was only £3 or £4 per acre, is now nearly £1,500. The people of that city have created this enormous wealth, and they are taxed to the extent of £4,000,000 a year for having done so, and the people who have received the benefit of the united work of the community do not pay one brass farthing in local rates. If you want to relieve local rates, here is your opportunity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his usual characteristic manner, told us that this principle had been tried and failed in Henry George's day. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to tell the House that the reason why Henry George had failed
was because he lived in the time when men were influenced by:
God bless the Squire and his relations,
They keep us in our proper stations.
It was the big power of the landowners of this country. I am not complaining of the landowners individually. Some of them are among my best friends. It is the system that exists to-day that I am condemning and not the men who have simply inherited the evil. If I had time, and I do not want to delay the House any longer, I could give glaring cases where, in connection with extensions to the docks, the Dock Board have had to pay no less than £80,000 before they could put a spade and a barrow upon the seashore. The Dock Board consequently charge heavy dock and harbour dues to the shipowner who, being in addition heavily taxed locally and imperially, naturally to keep afloat is heavily handicapped. If you are seriously inclined to relieve local rates here is a source where you can begin, because without the taxation of land values everything else is absolutely a waste of effort. I cannot understand why this thing has been shelved. It has been said that it has been tried and that it has failed. It has never been been tried. It has been said that the machinery was created to deal with this question. It was only coquetting with it. We never got to the kernel of the whole business.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) put the case years ago; I knelt at his feet in the valleys of North Wales and heard him put the case at that time of the tragic quarry dispute which lasted seven months when the man who claimed to own the mountains exploited their bowels at the expense of the workmen. To-day the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has pointed out how heavy is the burden of local rates on each ton of steel produced. The local rate is a charge of 4s. per ton on every ton of steel, but compare that with the charge of 6s. per ton which a royalty landlord exacts on every ton of manufactured steel. It is ridiculous and absurd to say that the relief of rates which will go to the steel manufacturer under this Bill, but which will never reach the operatives in the industry, is going to be any good. There is only one solution; it may be sneered at, and that is the taxation of
land values. Everything we want in the way of food, everything we wear, comes from the land, and although the employers may risk their capital and the employés their lives, the man who owns the land and does nothing whatever to increase its value, gets off scot free and does not pay one brass farthing to local rates. There is no other permanent way of relieving industry.

Sir HARRY HOPE: As a Scottish Member I want to express my wholehearted support of this Bill. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) commenced by saying that he did not think a single workman would gain by the passage of this Measure. The industries of this country are the foundation of its prosperity, and if they suffer, if by reason of the great weight of burden of local taxation they are rendered unable to compete successfully with the industries of other countries, how are the workmen to find employment and how are they to be paid good and proper wages? Unless we do something to remove this dead weight burden of local taxation and free our industries, this nation is doomed. As unemployment increases the weight of the burden becomes all the heavier. We get a vicious circle. Unemployment creates unemployment and, therefore, any serious attempt to relieve the industries of this country of some of their burdens, is entitled to get general support.
As regards one of our basic industries, agriculture, it is the one with which I have the closest and most direct personal connection, and I say that agriculture in Scotland welcomes this Bill. If it becomes an Act it will give more encouragement to owners to maintain and keep up their improvements. It is a fallacy to think, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs does, that the owners of land are now unable to maintain the burden of reasonable upkeep. No doubt there are many estates in what might be called an impoverished condition, but yet on the whole it is wonderful what reviving power there is in land ownership. A man dies and the estate passes into the hands of his successor, who may have gone into industry or one of the professions and made money. He is thereby able to keep up what used to be done on the estate. In some cases the owner, as they say, marries money, or comes into money,
and from my own personal experience I say that throughout Scotland the number of estates whose owners are unable to maintain the burden of reasonable upkeep is not large. This Bill will enable this good work to proceed much better, and as it proceeds we shall have a general improvement in agriculture.
With regard to the date when this Bill is to come into force we all recognise that there are great difficulties in putting the date forward. Industries will have to be classified, and there are other difficulties to meet. I do not think, however, that that difficulty applies with quite the same force to agriculture, and if the money is available I should like to see agriculture get the benefits of this Bill a little sooner than the date proposed. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has argued that shops and houses should benefit under the proposal. I think that dwellers in houses will benefit, because if they live in any district which is hardly hit by rates, if the industries in which they work are relieved of this burden and employment is made more profitable, whether made more constant or wages increased, the occupiers of those houses will very directly benefit by the passing of the Measure. Then with regard to shops. As more money circulates, first by being earned in these industrial districts, that money will certainly circulate through the shops and, indirectly, there will be great benefit indeed coming to the occupiers of houses and shops in those districts. It has been said that the burden of local rates on a ton of steel averages 4s. 1d. per ton and that in some special districts it goes up to 17s. and 18s. per ton. If three-quarters of that burden is taken off the industry we can see how all those connected with it, whether they are workers living in the, houses or people living in the shops supplying their needs, will certainly reap a very direct benefit from the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has referred to the advantages to be obtained if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give the benefit of the freight reductions on our railways for special trades at an earlier date, and it has been said that as regards coal a reduction of 8d. per ton might just make all the difference to our getting export orders. There again, as with agriculture, there is no difficulty in
classification, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could also ante-date his proposals as regards this concession to railway companies, as well as to agriculture, the Bill would be much more helpful. All these benefits, and I think they are very real benefits, cannot be obtained, however, without the money being at our disposal and, surely, if we look around for money are we not bound to realise that petrol is perhaps more able to give us that money than any other article? I have no doubt that there may be some hardships which will follow the introduction of a tax of 4d. per gallon, but we have to look at the question as a whole, and I am sure, looking at the great direct and indirect benefits which will come from this Measure, that this House will be taking a wise step for the future of our trade and industry which, after all, is the very foundation stone of our welfare and prosperity.

Mr. DEAN: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Health on the way in which this Bill has been introduced. Speaking on behalf of industries generally I think that it is going to be of the very greatest assistance. I have the honour to represent an agricultural district which I think I may claim to be as important as any other. In reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's Debate I notice that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) referred to the subsidy which agriculture is going to get under this Bill. I should like to remind the hon. Member that in 1896 we got a reduction in our rates which, at that time, were £2,640,000. He said that this was given as a subsidy, that in 1923 we got a further subsidy of £3,600,000, and that now the Government were proposing to give us another subsidy of about £4,000,000. So far as agriculture is concerned the reduction in 1896 was sufficient to meet 50 per cent. of our needs, but our rates have greatly increased since then. In 1896, the £2,640,000 was sufficient for the needs of the agricultural population. The increase in rates since 1896 has been for the benefit of the whole community, but agriculture has had to bear the burden. I claim that so far from this being a subsidy for agriculture that it is a relief from rates which they have been
paying unfairly for a long time and that it is high time indeed that agriculture received this relief. So far as rating relief goes, speaking for ray own constituency, I am quite sure that not only will it increase production, but it will stimulate the farmer to cultivate his land better, to increase his production, and thereby to employ more labour. In that manner the whole nation will get the benefit.
I would like to refer to a question which affects my own particular district. I do not know if the Minister has noticed the fact that in industrial areas drainage rates are collected with the whole rates of the particular town. In my district we have an enormous drainage rate, over almost the whole of the county of Holland, which is collected as a separate drainage rate. That rate not only relieves and benefits the land, but it also helps to drain the towns. Without it the towns would be flooded and would not exist as they do now. The roads would be flooded. The position entirely depends on how the watercourses are kept, and it must be remembered that those water-courses are paid for entirely by the taxes on the land.
What I want to point out to the Minister is this. I am afraid that be does not include in this Bill drainage rates. I believe, however, that they are included when they are collected together with the other rates in industrial areas and, on behalf of my constituency, I would ask the Minister that the people on the land should be treated as fairly as those in the town. I happen to be the chairman of two of these drainage bodies, and we have to collect a sum of no less than £15,000 a year which we spend on drainage. That is an enormous amount of money to raise. I do not know whether we can persuade the Minister that that money is being used for productive purposes and that we have a right, on that account, to be relieved of the whole amount, but, whether that be so or not, I do hope that the Minister will see that we have a very just claim for a very considerable relief. The particular land to which I have referred is land which is most productive, but if this money had not been spent upon it, it would have been a swamp. If, in the future, we have to face foreign com-
petition, in course of time the farmers will not be able to pay their full drainage rates, and they will allow their drains to get into worse conditions, and thereby production, instead of increasing, will decrease. I am quite sure the Minister of Health is sympathetic towards agriculture, and I am quite sure that he will give full consideration to the matter that I have mentioned.
The hon. Member who preceded me was pleading on behalf of Scotland that we should have this relief for agriculture earlier than has been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as an English Member, I would support him. I am one of those who fully realise the difficulties of the Government. I fully realise that had it not been for the strike in 1926 we should have got that relief earlier. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friends on the Labour benches realise that they are to blame. What is the position? The position is that 30 years ago in rural areas we were paying £2,600,000 in rates. Since then our population in the rural areas has not increased. Your need for roads, for Poor Law and for education, so far as the rural areas are concerned, has not increased for the benefit of agriculturists but for the benefit of the community. For those reasons I do urge the Minister of Health to give sympathetic consideration to the claim which I have put forward. I know full well that every industry will think that it has the first claim, but I think that my arguments are irrefutable, and they show that agriculture has indeed the first claim.

Mr. CHARLETON: There is just one point that I want to put to the Minister from the point of view of the workers on the railways. We have just heard hon. Members speaking for the railway companies, and I think the Minister of Health will agree that the problem which I am putting forward is one that does require some consideration. As I understand the working of the Government proposals, the railway companies will pay their rates as usual, but the remissions will go into a pool, from which the companies will be reimbursed for the remissions of freights on five or six different things on which the freightage will be lowered. Among the hereditaments that will be de-rated will be the locomotive engineering shops, the carriage and wagon shops, and the
other shops where railway materials are made. If I understand the suggestion of the Government aright, it is that the remissions will all go to assist in the reduction of freights and not to assist the railway companies to produce locomotive engines cheaper. Already, the workers in railway shops are on short time, and at this period, when short time is worked, we usually have the managers of the various shops on the same railway telling the men at a particular shop that if they will only accept lower rates or make an engine cheaper they will be quite safe. They are constantly showing them a shop about 200 miles away that is able to turn out engines, carriages, or wagons more cheaply than they can, and they tell the men that, unless they will consent to a reduction of piece rates, they will be losing their work. But the outside firms who make locomotive engines and carriages and get a little work for the railways will have their rates lowered, and they will get their remissions in order that they may provide cheaper locomotive engines and carriages.
I want to know what is going to be the effect on the railways. Surely it will be this. There will be unfair competition, and the railway companies will have to be compelled to manufacture without any assistance in this way. I agree that they should not get any assistance in this way, because they are not competing in a market, and they are not affecting international trade in any way. But it would be very unfair, and it would lead to intense trouble, if this state of things were allowed to take place. At the moment, I think, speaking generally, there are very few labour troubles on the railways, but I can see them coming along if these people outside are to be put in the position of being able to compete more cheaply.
According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Utopia is coming as the result of these proposals, and we shall be able to get our locomotive engines given away with a packet of tea or something of that sort. If what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in his Budget speech is true, these people will be able to manufacture locomotive engines, carriages, and wagons very much more cheaply as the result of this remission of taxation. That will lead to unrest on the railways. There may be grave disturbances of huge
masses of men. There are some 120,000 or 130,000 men employed in the railway shops, and they have friends in other departments, numbering in all about 700,000. If this happens, the railway companies may be tempted to give large orders outside and to close down their own shops, because it is cheaper to place orders outside. But the Minister thinks that the object of these Budget proposals is not that the railway companies should get cheaper locomotives; the object is to foster international trade. The right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a difficulty here, and it may lead to disturbing conditions later on if it is carried out. On the general principle I will say nothing, nor will I criticise this Bill, as a good deal has been said by way of criticism already. I do ask the Minister, however, to apply himself to this problem, so that nothing may be done to disturb the arrangements arrived at with the railway companies.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: It was not my intention to do other than that which the last two or three speakers have done to-night, and that is to refer to one point to which I ask the Minister to give some consideration in regard to the working of this Bill, but, in view of the speeches delivered by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) and the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) I would like to say just one word on the remarks that have fallen from their lips. I was very much struck, and I dare say the House was very much struck, by the difference between the arguments used by those two hon. Members and the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). In regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, it is, of course, awkward to deal with points raised by any right hon. Gentleman who is no longer present in the House, and I shall not go very fully into them. But the right hon. Gentleman said that he objected altogether in principle to the relief of industry by the transference of the burden of rates from one part of industry to another.
8.0 p.m.
That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was arguing. Apparently, his argument was that there was nothing to be got by
reducing rates in order to improve industry, but there was something to be gained by the transference of the burden. It was rather unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was not present when his late colleague was absolutely destroying, so far as he could, the benefits of the argument of his late chief. The same thing applies to the argument used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Collie. His argument was not that it was undesirable, or that it could produce no benefit, to reduce the charges on industry, but that that reduction ought to be extended. He produced several instances of where productive organisations which were not within the purview of the Bill ought to be brought within it; organisations such as electrical power organisations, which, he said, would be much to the advantage of the industry and also to the advantage of the consumer. When you get two authoritative speakers on the other side directly controverting in its main principle, the argument put forward in opposition to the Bill by no less a person than the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, it ought to give reasonable people cause to reflect: "Have the Government not hit upon a satisfactory and useful way of tackling the question of the depressed industries?" I say no more on the general question because there has been ample discussion of the principles of the Bill but I should like to put a question with regard to a point raised on Monday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He criticised the Bill on the ground that there a great deal of unnecessary expense was involved in making a second valuation when, under the 1925 Act, agricultural and industrial properties in the country were already being valued. I think there is a point there for consideration. In his speech yesterday the Minister of Health, to a certain extent, withdrew the sting from that criticism by pointing out that the appointment of a new set of revenue officers to make this valuation on behalf of the Government would only operate during the first year and when the first valuation was being made.
That alters the situation, but I still doubt exceedingly whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get what he expects for anything like the money which has
been estimated. If he expects to get all the agricultural land and all the industrial hereditaments of the country valued by a set of officials, brought in for the purpose, for £150,000, I am afraid he is "in for" a rude awakening. I do not believe it would be possible to get even the agricultural land of the country valued for anything like that sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a night or two ago pointed with great appositeness to the fact that the only result of the Measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1910, was to increase the staff by 4,000 and to get very little result in the way of taxation. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not find himself repeating, on a smaller scale, the same operation in regard to this Bill. I would not make this suggestion if I did not think there was another way of getting what the Govern-want and what I desire them to get, namely fair play for the Treasury and for the Imperial funds in connection with this valuation. But I cannot see why it is necessary to create this new set of officials. There would have to be an enormous number of new officials for this work in England, and in Scotland too. The present staff is merely the nucleus of what would have to be brought together for this purpose. Has the Minister considered where he is going to get competent people to do this work? The great majority of those who are competent for work of this kind are already engaged up to the hilt, and will be engaged for many months to come, in carrying out the revaluation under the 1925 Act. That point will have to be taken into consideration.
There is another way in which this might be done. I cannot see why it is desirable or necessary that these revenue officers, as they are called—which means a new Department for the purpose—should have to value all these properties as is proposed in the Bill. Why should not the Government take power, as has been done in other circumstances, to make valuations only in cases where there is a suspicion that something has gone wrong in regard to valuation. That has been done over and over again, and there is no reason why the Government should not have the security which they desire that local authorities will not over estimate where it is to their interest or
under estimate where it is to their interest. There are various reasons why, in connection with the valuation of agricultural and industrial properties, it is not likely that attempts will be made to get the better of the Imperial tax-collectors. For instance, in regard to agricultural properties the owners would object to over-assessment for rating, because it would increase their assessment for Income Tax under Schedule A and probably for Death Duties also. They would object to an over-assessment on the whole farm or property. The occupiers would have ground for objecting, because farmhouses are usually taken as a certain proportion of the value of the farm, and the rates payable in respect of them would therefore be proportionately increased if the farm were over-assessed.
I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able on the lines which I have suggested to find a way of avoiding heavy expenditure in connection with the carrying out of this Measure. In regard to industrial hereditaments, practically all properties of this kind have recently been, or shortly will be, valued by people who thoroughly understand the matter and who have all the particulars in their possession. They would be able to carry out such an apportionment as the Bill desires most excellently and economically. The Government have another safeguard. These assesments are carefully watched by the comity valuation committees and the occupiers themselves would still have to pay a percentage of the rates, so that from every point of view it seems to me that the Government might well consider if it is necessary to bring what are called revenue officers into operation at all in regard to this Bill. In making that suggestion I am responding to the invitation which the Government have thrown out to supporters and opponents alike, asking for constructive criticism, and I hope they will save money by my suggestion. If they are able to do so and make the operation of this beneficent Measure still more beneficent, I shall not regret my intervention in this Debate.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Member who has jut spoken referred to the Land Taxes of 1910. I do not believe the landlords lost anything as far as those taxes were concerned, because when the
Measure was repealed, the Government of the day saw to it that all the money that had been paid from 1910 to 1919, amounting to something like £3,000,000, was refunded. Therefore the landlords have nothing to complain of in regard to the Land Taxes of 1910.

Sir P. PILDITCH: No, but the taxpayer has.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have several times taken part in discussions here in reference to the burden of high local rates upon the steel, tinplate and galvanized trades of this country. I have suggested that the Government ought to try to rectify some of the injustice and suffering caused in the necessitous areas and in some of the industries in South Wales, and I have suggested a method quite different from that proposed in the Bill. As far as I understand the Bill, its proposal is to relieve the prosperous industries. We have suggested that in necessitous areas and in some of the districts where the works have been idle—in some cases since 1921—the Government ought to give immediate relief to local authorities who have had the burden of unemployment forced upon their rates. I take four districts in South Wales—Swansea, Port Talbot, Blaenavon, and Cwmbran. We find that in Blaenavon the steel works and some of the mines have been idle since 1921. In Cwmbran the mines and the steel works are all idle at the present time. At Port Talbot, in Baldwin's works, one part of the steel works has been idle for the last two years, and in the Margam steel works I do not believe they have worked for six months during the last four or five years, but in the Swansea district you have quite a different proposition. There you have steel works, tinplate works, mines, and docks, where, although you may get depression in one trade for a certain period, other trades in the district continue working.
According to the returns that we have received from the Minister of Health, the rates in Swansea are something like 18s. 5d. in the £, but in some of the districts in Monmouthshire and other districts in South Wales they amount to 25s. to over 30s. in Abertillery, and, I believe, to over 30s. in the Merthyr district. What I want to know is how this Bill is going to assist the works at
Blaenavon, the works at Cwmbran, the works at Margam, and the works at Port Talbot. Do I understand that under the Bill it is only the works that are working that will be in a position to make an application for relief? If so, I cannot see how the Bill is going to assist the works that are already idle and that have been idle for a large number of years. The right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) talked about the rates in steel works being from 2s. up to 5s. per ton. I agree, but what the right hon. Gentleman failed to understand and to point out to the House was this, that in the manufacture of steel you have coal, scrap, limestone, and pig-iron. This pig-iron is imported from other districts, the limestone is brought from other districts into the industrial areas, the scrap is also brought from the shipyards and other places, and the coal is brought, we will assume, from the Rhondda Valley. It is the high rates on coal in the Rhondda Valley, the high rates in the districts where they produce the pig-iron, and the high rates where the scrap is obtained that cripple the steel industry.
I want to know how the steel works are going to be relieved of their burden if the relief has already been given to these districts that produce the iron ores, the pig-iron, the scrap, and the coal. These are questions that have been puzzling me, and I should like to know how this Bill is going to apply to these districts. To suggest that the relief is only to be given in 1929 will not assist us in South Wales in any way. We want immediate relief in so far as the mining industry and the steel industry are concerned, and in my opinion, the only way in which that can he done is by the Government at once shouldering one of the burdens on the local authorities by maintaining the unemployed themselves.
Then there is a second proposal that was made by the Samuel Commission, and also by the Sankey Commission, that mining royalties should be abolished. Let me give one simple illustration to show the burden on the steel industry in so far as mining royalties are concerned. I will not put exaggerated figures before the House. Some say that it takes four tons of coal to produce one ton of steel. Other people dispute that, and say that in some of the most modern works you
can produce a ton of steel with three tons of coal. I will take the lower figure. According to the reports of the Samuel Commission and the Sankey Commission, it was estimated that the mining royalties in this country averaged about 1s. 6d. per ton. If it takes three tons of coal to produce a ton of steel you thus have 4s. 6d. in royalties. Then there are the mining royalties on iron ore, and you also have the mining royalties on limestone, working out altogether at about 8s. per ton. We will take the figures given by the right hon. Member for Hillhead and say that the burden of the rates is 5s. a ton. Here you have the landlords of the country placing on the steel industry an impost of 8s. a ton before we can produce one ton of steel; and I want to point out that the wages—and I am speaking now of the modern works—in producing that ton of steel, the finished bar in making tinplate bars, work out at about 10s. a ton. Therefore, you have the landlords of this country, in mining royalties alone, imposing 8s. a ton on the production of steel, whereas the whole of the wages in the steel trade paid for manufacturing that ton of steel are only 10s.
These are anomalies that the Government could tackle at once, without wasting the time of the House with a Chinese puzzle such as we are discussing now; and my suggestion to the Government is this: We want immediate relief by the Government taking the responsibility of paying and giving the support to the unemployed that is now done by the local authorities. My second proposition is that they should accept the recommendation of the Sankey and the Samuel Commissions, and abolish the mining royalties or, if you like, nationalise them. My third proposition is this: The landlords and their friends here to-day have been praising this relief and that relief, but I want to impose something upon them, and I want the Government to tackle the question of the taxation of land values. With these three things, I am sure that the country would be relieved of a great responsibility, and they would give us greater assistance in setting the wheels of industry going than by the method proposed in this Bill.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I do not rise to criticise this Bill. There are ways in
which industry might have been helped more effectively, and in which help might have been brought more quickly, but because this Bill brings help to the productive industries I welcome it, for I believe that anything that will lowers the cost of production will not only help industry, but will be of value to the whole country. I am concerned at the moment with the effect that this Bill and these proposals will have upon agriculture, and I have risen to support the appeal that has been made to the Chancellor from the benches opposite to bring into operation the benefits that will come to agriculture at an earlier date than October, 1929. The help to agriculture will come in two ways; first in the relief of rates. I would point out under this head that agriculture will get only 25 per cent. relief. It will be said at once that agriculture has already had relief to the extent of 75 per cent., but I submit that what we are considering at the moment is what benefit will come to agriculture under this Bill, and how that benefit will compare with benefits that will come to other industries. Agriculture, it will not be questioned, is the oldest and most important of our industries. Whether it is judged from the number of men for whom it finds employment or from the value of its produce, it is of first importance to the community; and what has impressed me more than anything else since I have been in this House is that there are many hon. Members who do not seem to realise the serious position of those who are engaged in agriculture.
The tenant, the occupier of agricultural holdings, is in a more serious position than many Members of the House realise, and to offer them help more than 18 months' hence is not a fair way of meeting their difficulties. This industry is very hard pressed, and I appeal to the Chancellor to consider whether he cannot come to its help immediately. We have heard during this Debate that a considerable portion of the money that will be distributed is available. I do not suggest that help can be given by relief of rates at an earlier date. I have had some experience with rating authorities; for more than 20 years I have been engaged in municipal work, and I consider that the Minister has been optimistic in thinking that all the arrangements that
will need to be made can be made before October, 1929. I shall not be at all surprised if the view expressed this afternoon does not prove to be correct, and that when October, 1929 comes it will be found that there are many valuation authorities who have not their valuation list ready, so that this rate relief may not come into operation even at that date.
There is, however, a way in which agriculture can be helped at an earlier date. As I have said, benefit comes in two ways. The Chancellor asks us to regard the second way as relief in railway freights. I suggest that it would be quite possible for relief to be given to the railways, so that they may pass on the benefit in reduced railway freights immediately, and the farmers may get the benefit for the crop which is now growing. I suggest that not one-fifth, which was the figure named by the Minister, should be the amount allocated to agriculture, but that a higher figure—one-third—might very properly be allowed, because, although you are giving 25 per cent. relief of rates to agriculture, you are giving 75 per cent. to productive industries, which in my judgment are not of more importance, and are even of less importance to the country, than agriculture. I submit, therefore, that one-fifth is not the amount that agriculture might really claim, and that one-third might be allowed to it.
When that benefit comes to agriculture, on what basis will it be allowed? It will have to be shown by the railway companies that they are passing this relief on to agriculture. Therefore, I suppose, they will reduce freights. Will the figure be estimated from the figure that is now on the railway rates-book, or will it be a reduction on the special rates that railway companies have already given to sonic kinds of merchandise? I was talking to a farmer the other day, and he reminded me that the relief of rates which he might expect would amount to £20 a year, but if he could get a reduction of 2s. 6d. on the railway freight on the foodstuffs which he uses, that would amount to £25 per year to him. The rate which is on the rates-book at the moment, say from the Port of Liverpool to this particular consumer's station, is 11s. 1d. per ton, but the railway companies have
now given a special rate of 8s. 6d. per ton to compete with road transport. That relief has been brought about through the challenging competition of road transport. The Government are now going to make that competition less challenging by the tax on petrol. It seems to me that it may be possible for the railway company to go back, not to the 8s. 6d. special rate that they have given, but to a higher rate than that. Will the relief that is to come to agriculture be a relief on the special rate of 8s. 6d., which he has now got through the challenging competition of road transport, or will the relief that the railway companies have to pass on be reckoned on the rate that is now on the rates-book? That is a very important point to which the Chancellor will do well to give his attention.

Mr. SKELTON: I rise to address a few observations to the House at a moment when the discussion of this Bill has reached the lull that conies before the final storm and the Division. I rise only to say a word on the general principle, but, first, to congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, most heartily on the method by which he has dealt with the peculiar difficulties and problems connected with the application of this Bill to the Scottish system of rating. I am not going into the details of how it will affect Scotland, but my right hon. Friend's speech has made it perfectly clear to the Scottish public, both urban and rural, what its effect will be. It is interesting to note that the direct relief to the tenant farmer is most substantial, and when you consider the case of the existing leases—which, after all, is the practical question of the moment, and the one which will affect the present depression—you find that the net result of my right hon. Friend's proposal is not only to give the tenant farmer complete relief of rates but also to give him what is, in effect, a considerable reduction of rent. That is really the only adequate way in which it can be expressed. He not only keeps the relief which is due on his share of the rates, namely, the occupiers' rates, but he gets one half of the relief given to the owner, and that means that that is paid over to him and is really equivalent to a very considerable reduction of rent. To all who know the agricultural situation in
Scotland that is a matter so full of promise, and so sound, that I do most warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the way he has tackled this question.
From the point of view of agriculture, in Scotland, there are other aspects of it which are also extraordinarily valuable, as I think. At last the owner-occupier in Scotland is put in nearly the same position as the owner-occupier in England. As a, Conservative I have always believed, and I think the experience of other countries shows, that it is of immense value to agriculture that a man should own the land he cultivates, but under the system in Scotland by which the landlord pays half the rates and the tenant pays the other half, the dice were heavily loaded against the owner-occupier. Until something was done for him he was, from a rating point of view, at a heavy disadvantage, and no class of agriculturist in Scotland will gain such substantial relief from the proposals which my right hon. Friend sketched to-day as the owner-occupier. In view of the constant increase of owner-occupiers in Scotland, I think that is a matter of real importance. Further, Conservatives who believe that a successful democracy must be a democracy which is largely property owning, a democracy which is made substantial by the ownership of property, and who feel that the rural districts offer the best opportunities for the development of such a property-owning democracy, believe that the proposals we have heard to-day brings that ideal democracy definitely a step nearer. On that point, too, I most warmly congratulate my right. hon. Friend.
There is one other point. This, I think, is common both to England and Scotland. It was a real piece of constructive statesmanship to include woodlands in agricultural land. This is not a matter which one wishes to discuss in detail at this stage, but everyone who is familiar with Scottish conditions and knows the proportion of Scottish soil which is incapable of arable cultivation and must be mainly devoted to forestry if the fullest use is to be made of it, must feel that it is of great value that woodlands have been put on the same basis as agricultural land for the purpose of de-rating. Before I sit down I should like, even at this late
stage of the Debate, to add my word of praise and satisfaction, if I may use that term—

Mr. J. JONES: Why do you not get a trowel and put it on quickly?

Mr. SKELTON: I am in the habit of saying what I have to say, and growls from under the Gallery do not as a rule alter what I am going to say. What I am going to say, if my hon. Friend can bear it, s this. Many of us have felt the extraordinary unsoundness of the system under which local revenue is collected. Its basic unsoundness from a fiscal point of view is that local rates are not levied upon the ability of a person to pay. The rate collector, unlike the Income Tax collector, comes whether there are profits or not. There can hardly be any system more unsound fiscally than the present rating system. That unsoundness operates to the maximum degree in the case of productive industries. There could hardly be any system of extracting money from the citizen mere foolish than to take the premises in which it is sought to create wealth and say that rates are to be levied on them whether work is being carried on there at a profit or at a loss. In the old days, when rates were on a very low scale, the badness of the principle did net much matter; but with rates at the height they are now their extraction, irrespective of whether there is a profit or a loss, weighs very heavily upon productive industry.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he will extend that principle and say that a workman who is out of work should have relief from rates?

Mr. SKELTON: One thing at a time. What is the situation in this country with which we are chiefly concerned at the moment? It is the state of the staple industries; and, as I have said, the evil effect of the present faulty system of rate collecting operates at its maximum in the case of productive industries. I agree that if we were going to remodel entirely the rating system, even dwelling houses would not be left under the present system, but at the moment that is clearly beyond all possibility.

Miss LAWRENCE: Why?

Mr. J. JONES: You have a majority of 200.

Mr. SKELTON: In view of the limits of time I am not anxious to enter into. the discussion of that point, but I can say in a word that it is clearly beyond possibility for the reason that we have no immediate source of alternative income adequate to fill the gap which that change would make. That must be clear to anyone who will really look at the facts of the situation. Let me direct the hon. Lady's attention to this point in particular, that the difference between the rating of productive concerns and the rating of dwelling houses is that a dwelling house is not intended to be a place where a profit is made and a workshop or factory is. It is in the highest degree folly to tax a workshop or a factory when it is making a loss. Unsound in principle as is the present system of rating in relation to dwelling-houses there is this mitigation that, speaking generally, a man takes a, dwelling-house knowing its rent and the amount of rates he will have to pay, and he accommodates himself to the rent and the rates which he can afford to pay.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Yes, so long as he has an income.

Mr. SKELTON: I agree that it would be a good thing to give some special consideration to unemployed men with regard to the rates, but, looking at the situation as a whole, if you wish to solve the industrial position, you can only do it through a reduction of the rates which fall upon productive industries. This is just the direction in which the criticisms which have been made against this Bill have been so weak and feeble. I know there are very few hon. Members in this House who do not think that if the rates are a burden, and if they are collected on an unsound fiscal principle, productive interests are vitally affected before any other interests. It seems to me to be clear that the Government have tackled the question of rating on the right lines and at the right end, and I cannot believe that the kind of criticism which prefers that the available relief should be spread over the whole of the ratepayers is sound. I cannot believe that such criticism is really sincere. I am satisfied that whatever party comes into power their natural instinct must
be to relieve the productive industries in order that they may be able to give relieve to the unemployed and the half-employed who still remain one of the great tragedies of this country. As one interested in the future of Scotland and its rural districts, I warmly congratulate the Government upon having brought to agriculture in Scotland some real and permanent relief.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to refer to one special aspect of this subject which has engaged the attention of one of the leading Members of the Opposition. I refer to the question of the breweries. I cannot contemplate the idea of the brewers of this country coming in to receive the benefits which are offered under this Bill. Up to the present there has not been any necessity for the brewing industry to make an application for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That has not yet taken place, but the Government has decided that there are certain productive industries which have been severely depressed, and certain organisations have been picked out for assistance in case of their decay. In connection with the brewing industry, I have got out the figures of the amounts paid in police and poor rates for 1927 and 1928, and I find that this industry has paid £551,000. I think we ought to ask ourselves the question whether the carrying on of the brewing industry has not a direct bearing upon the depression which exists in other industries which are legitimate industries and which are entitled to some relief under this or under any other scheme.
On a former occasion, I presented figures relating to the brewing trade prepared by the Board of Trade, which showed clearly that the unemployed question was involved. The depression of industry was involved by the fact that the expenditure by the breweries, as contrasted with any other trade detailed by the Board of Trade, shows that only one man was able to find employment as against eight men who would be employed if that money had been spent in the industries which are now suffering. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) referred to Beardmore's works, the engineering trade which not so very long ago was considered to be at the top of our working
class industries. Now the ordinary worker who is a member of the National Union of General Workers receives a better wage than the skilled engineer. In this Bill we find the Government coming forward with a proposal to give relief to the brewing industry which has had such a powerful effect in causing the depression of other industries, in spite of the fact that it is perfectly clear that the Government could not have selected any kind of trade or business in the country which stands out more clearly as being especially prosperous at this particular time when many other legitimate industries are practically lying in the dust. The last figures published for 1920–27 show that the brewing industries made a profit of £24,500,000. In 1923–24 the profits were £22,250,000 and in 1924–25 the profits were £23,250,000. I think what is proposed in this Bill is an absolute insult to those who are finding it a tremendous struggle to pay any rates at all.
That powerful capitalist force which controls these brewing concerns is able to he included in a scheme the main object of which is to deal with productive industry, which is suffering under tremendous competition, while these concerns meet with no competition at all except it be, with the assistance of some people connected with the Conservative party, competition with America in trying to find means of making money. Barring that kind of competition, these concerns are safeguarded all the way. It is very strange that the forces which are identified with criticism of that line of business—I refer to the temperance forces of our country—have never yet attacked it, but, on the contrary, have helped to safeguard this particular business, with the subsidising of which the Government itself is now particularly identified. Undoubtedly our poor relief and our unemployment relief ought to be dealt with on a national basis. There is not a shadow of doubt that, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the anomaly of this business will be picked out and criticised severely in the country from the standpoint of the tremendous difficulty with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be faced in making such a distinction as is
the natural outcome of the scheme. The brewers in the County of London will receive, under this scheme, over £100,000 a year. Those of Burton-on-Trent will receive about £45,000, those of Birmingham and Smethwick over £18,000, those of Manchester and Liverpool about £15,000, and others in like proportion; and the cost will fall on the general taxpayer.
9.0 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer got a very severe and, I think, warrantable dressing down from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs this afternoon, although I suppose they are pretty well used to exchanges of that kind, and perhaps do not mean very much by them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has fallen on remarkably sad days in regard to the question of principle. He is convicted of actually being responsible for pushing through a scheme which intends to utilise millions of the money that will be available to assist that particular combination of organisations which is making more money than any concern in the country at the present time, and yet his statement is quoted about the awful predicament in which our industries are placed at this juncture. To me the situation has gone beyond words. It is bare-faced audacity on the part of men who are not baffled by want of brains in tackling this job of relieving taxation and getting it put upon a far basis, that is to say, on the basis of the incomes of the people. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) was talking about the ordinary householder as a ratepayer and a taxpayer. Why should a man be taxed upon his rent when he may he out of employment for six months? Why should we have the agonising condition of unemployed men and women at the present time? In the appalling circumstances that are prevalent all over the country, and with a Government that pretends to be concerned about industry, if they really meant business they would, instead of putting forward this proposal to heap money on these concerns, be standing up to the task of cutting this business out entirely. The backing of forces of that kind in our country, because they have such a grip upon the Government, and to a large extent upon the House of Commons as a whole, is a measure of the
depth of immorality to which our political forces have sunk. If this is the best that can be done, the outlook is certainly bleak for the interests of the country in the highest sense.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Members who have spoken from the other side have to a large extent refused to make any attempt to answer the arguments that have been put forward by my hon. and right hon. Friends in regard to this Bill, but two personal statements have been made during the discussion this afternoon to which I would like to refer. One was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who was good enough to fling a taunt across to this side of the House that we were opposing this Bill because we were afraid that the other side might get some political capital out of it. The right hon. Gentleman talked rather at large about professional politicians, and the sort of motives that actuated people of that character. I am not sure to whom he was referring when he was speaking of professional politicians, but there is one thing that might be said to him, and to all Members of the older parties in this House, and that is that we have yet to establish the tradition by which men of various parties can change their creed and their principles in as easy and facile a manner as we have seen hon. and right hon. Gentlemen do during the last few years.
Then the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) tried to find some sort of contradiction between the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and other Members who had spoken during the discussion. There is no conflict of view between us at all. In dealing with a subject like that which the House has been discussing yesterday and to-day, we are bound to take into account, first of all, what any Government would do at a particular moment to palliate a particular evil, and what that Government would do to get rid of the evil in a root-and-branch manner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, when he was pointing out the futility of the argument that by relieving rates British industry would be restored, was not at all contradicting or in any way opposing the idea that, if the Labour party were
seated opposite, they would do their best to ease the burdens of those in the districts which are under discussion. We should also, however, I hope, undertake such reforms and such changes as would remove the causes of the necessity for such expenditure.
The question that we are discussing is not at all a new one. It is one that this House has to my knowledge discussed for many years past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was in the Liberal Government of 1906–1914, assisted, in the years 1910–1912, in bringing forward the Unemployed Workmen Act and the National Health Insurance Act, and those proposals were brought forward with the same sort of éclat with which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Bill. Of course, he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were quite certain that, when those Bills became law, rates would go down, the conditions of the workers would improve very considerably, and this House would not be bothered with the terrible questions connected with unemployment. We have seen the fallacy of all that sort of reasoning. We can make all the allowances that hon. Members on both sides want us to make in regard to the effect of the War upon industry, and yet here we are, ten years after the Armistice, discussing what the Minister of Health says is a scientific, well-thought-out scheme which will prove a solution of our industrial difficulties.
From the right hon. Gentleman himself, from the Prime Minister, and from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour we have during these last 10 years had scheme after scheme which was going to have this effect. We have had scheme after scheme put up which we were told would bring about a condition of things under which industry would thrive and prosper. The Minister of Health brought forward his proposals in regard to dealing with boards of guardians and in regard to audits as proposals which would ease the burdens of the over-burdened ratepayers in certain districts and accomplish the end which we had in view. I should like him to tell us how this proposal is going to do for the mining industry what the past legislation of the Government has failed to do. We all remember with what vigour the right hon. Gentleman and the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour supported the repeal of the Seven Hours Act. They must remember the statements that were made again and again from that Box that if only the mining industry was freed from the incubus of short hours, and if only the unions were left to have free relationships with their workpeople, industry would revive. The policy of the Government has had a fair and square chance. We got the eight hours day. Production has increased, the selling price of coal has been reduced, the workers' wages have been reduced, and production has been cheapened, and yet there are a quarter of a million men unemployed in the coal industry, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone else who thinks about the question at all that this proposition will be no more effective in dealing with the mining situation than was the eight hours' day and the lowering of the wages of the workmen. It is certain that the industry cannot recover in this sort of way, and the same argument applies to all other industries the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have trotted out as needing bolstering up.
I should like to ask him also to face another perfectly simple question. There is the question of agriculture. There is something over 1,000,000 acres less under cultivation to-day than during the period of the War. Why is it with the relief that agriculture has had, the increased relief given it by the Tory party, that the industry continues to go down? That again is nothing new. Ever since I have known anything of politics, we have been told that agriculture needed special treatment and special help from Parliament in one way or another. The right hon. Gentleman, whom no one accuses of not being able to think out a case or prepare a scheme, has not yet told us what legerdemain there is in this extra 25 per cent. of the rates that is going to be given to the agriculturist and how it is going to make profitable something that is not profitable. How can the right hon. Gentleman defend this proposition of a subsidy in face of all that he himself has said? He and the Prime Minister and other of his colleagues have again and again declared that never again would there be a subsidy for the coal industry. When is a subsidy not a subsidy? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that. How does this
differ from the subsidy that was given to the coalowners during the year preceding the lock-out? I want to go still further and ask him what is the difference between giving a rich brewery or a rich company that is paying a great dividend money out of the public purse and giving a workman money out of the public purse who comes to you and says he needs some help towards his wages?
The right hon. Gentleman said some choice things about Poplar and Poplarism. I should like to ask him what is the difference between this method and giving money for the relief of an unfortunate man who is unable to earn his bread. What is the fundamental difference between putting a tax on petrol and making poor people pay a halfpenny more on their fares, and giving some unfortunate person in Poplar or West Ham or Merthyr Poor Law relief? You are going to give relief to people who do not need it. If a Board of Guardians did it, the right hon. Gentleman would instruct his officers to prosecute them. What is the difference? There is no moral difference and there is no material difference. There is a process that I used to hear something about in the country, named feeding the fat sow. I do not know exactly what it means, but I dare say the right hon. Gentleman can understand what I mean. It means giving something to somebody who does not need it. You are going to feed the people in industry who are piling up tens of thousands of pounds of profit every year, and you come forward to us and say that you are doing this in order to stimulate industry and put it on its feet. You know that you are not going to do anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that this scheme is similar to that which I heard him talk about some years ago from the Treasury box, when he used to talk about unemployment as being a question not of there being insufficient work to go round but a question of the mobility or labour. He was very enthusiastic in those days about the mobility of labour being a cure for unemployment. In those days he was younger and I was much younger, and he used to pour scorn and contempt upon me because I told him that he was running the wrong sort of policy. The particular thing which he is so enthusiastic about now is something which I
think he must know in his heart will have absolutely no effect except, in the main, to give money where money is not wanted.
Let me go a little further. The right hon. Gentleman is going to stimulate industry. Will he tell me how he is going to stimulate it in the Merthyr Tydvil coal districts, where most of the pits are worn out, where there is a huge population who have nowhere to go and no chance of getting employment, and where the industries in the neighbourhood are wiped out? His scheme of giving relief will not work there, because there are no collieries in that district that can start working. Therefore, the proposal will not do anything whatever towards stimulating the reopening of the pits. It is no use to reopen them and there is no sense in thinking about their reopening. There is not only one district of that kind, but many districts. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell me how his schemes will reopen those pits. If it will not do so, then certainly it will not affect the condition of things in Merthyr.
Let me deal with the case of Poplar. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when he was at the Board of Trade, years ago, he had to take into consideration the question of casual labour. He knows that the curse of East London is casual labour and he knows that this scheme will not affect that problem one bit. He also knows that the one or two big industries in the East End of London that pay big dividends will get relief, while the unhappy people living in the houses will get no relief whatsoever. The biggest ratepayers in my district—I have nothing against them at all; they are good employers as far as employers go and they are model employers as far as modern employers are concerned—pay on their business an extraordinary dividend year after year. They pay somewhere about £11,000 or £12,000 a year in rates. They pay huge dividends each year. The right hon. Gentleman is going to give them £9,000 a year relief on their rates. What trade will that stimulate? How many people will that put into work? Where does he think that £9,000 will go? They may, for all I know, spend it in developing a factory in Holland or in Timbuctoo, but it is perfectly certain
that the money will not benefit the district which I represent. Under the walls of that factory there are people who are paying 18s. and 16s. a week rent out of wages of £2 a week. Out of that amount of rent they pay at least half in rates. The Government scheme will not help them one bit. It will not bring them any relief whatever.
The scheme so far as London is concerned and as far as Poplar is concerned may very likely bring them a heavier burden. The Government have not yet produced their formula, but we have had from the Minister of Health some previous communications which told us something about block grants and how he proposed to manipulate block grants. If any such scheme as that comes off, it will mean that London is to lose about £200,000 a year, because London as a whole is not looked upon as a necessitous area, although many of the districts in it are necessitous. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how I can inform my constituents that this precious scheme is going to help them. As I understand it, it is going to make things a little worse for them, and my reason for that belief is that the document issued some time ago by the Minister of Health dealing with block grants most definitely left us with the knowledge that if this was adopted we should definitely lose so far as London is concerned.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends and the Government are in this Bill attempting to ladle out the ocean with a spoon. They are not attempting to deal with this question in a scientific manner, although the right hon. Gentleman yesterday spoke about this being a scientific scheme. If this is a scientific scheme, then God help us and God save us from scientific men, because of all the idiotic schemes for dealing with a great economic situation or a difficult economic situation such as that which faces us, there never was so idiotic a scheme ever proposed by any set of men at any time. What is it that faces us? I will not be so discourteous as to think that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand. He knows as well as I know that the problems with which we have to deal so far as industry is concerned are not going to be even tickled by this proposal. He knows that the coal industry will remain as it is, unless it is reorganised on an altogether
different basis. He knows that the iron and steel trade will remain in the same situation. He knows that capitalism, as he understands it, and as we all understand it, is working out into a more and more national monopoly. He knows that as these things proceed, unemployment and partial employment and all the things that accompany changes in methods of production and changes in organisation, take place. He knows as well as any man in this House that unemployment causes high rates. It is not high rates that cause unemployment. He knows that unemployment is caused by economic causes, which work irrespective of Governments and irrespective of parties.
There is no way out of this difficulty except national action, national credit, national money. His party, which has come in with the greatest majority of modern times, this Tory Government, in every single piece of legislation, except that which has been penal legislation, has used the power of the State, has used national credit and has used national money in order to bolster up what it calls private enterprise. Private enterprise is bankrupt, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. When you had to deal with electricity, you were obliged to come to this House to get £30,000,000 of credit to enable you to carry on electricity in this country. In every single direction, when you wanted to do something for industry you have had to get national credit and national money to do it. The right hon. Gentleman the late Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whom you have pitch-forked into another place, on one of the last occasions that he spoke from the third bench there, told the House definitely and distinctly that there was no way out of the industrial situation in which we found ourselves except more and more national money, more and more national organisation, and more and more national interference in what you call this business of private enterprise. That being so and seeing that you have already had your way in bringing down the cost of production and in reducing the wages of the workers in all industries, and seeing, too, that when you have put this thing into operation you will have made confusion worse confounded, I have the greatest possible pleasure in voting against this Bill and for the Amendment.
Hon. Gentlemen have said that they do not fear the country on this issue. I will tell them, from the knowledge I have gained by going about the country, what was said years ago in America. It was said that you could not fool all the people all the time. I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to think of that saying. It was said during an economic and moral crisis similar to the one through which we are passing to-day. In this country and all over the world capitalism is on its trial. Capitalism has to answer the question of the educated workers: "Why cannot capitalism give us an ordered, reasonable, decent, regular standard of life?" You are not able to do that. You are educating men and women who now are able to understand that it is not God who creates poverty and slums. They know that it is economic conditions that are man-made, and they are going to have those conditions unmade. You have to abolish this miserable worn-out theory of beggar-your-neighbour by competition and substitute for it co-operative effort of men and women to provide one another with decent means of life. That is the remedy for the ills of to-day.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure that we shall most of us agree with the earnest impulse which lies at the back of the impassioned speech to which we have just listened, but it was a pity that the hon. Member was so precipitate in condemning the policy on which His Majesty's Government have now embarked as to say that it was the most idiotic scheme which could be suggested, because, after all, he has not seen the whole policy. Nor does he know at all what will be the ultimate effects of this policy, when it is unfolded in the course of a year, on his own constituents, or whether it will make a better or worse provision for them. It would be wise, before condemning the results of the policy and its conception as utterly idiotic, to make quite sure what it is you have before you. At any rate, there is one thing I can say in reply to the hon. Gentleman, and that is that the effort is a sincere one. He has reminded me of 20 years age, when we first set up the Employment Exchanges in this country, and he says what a fraud and disappointment they have been, or words to that effect.

Mr. LANSBURY: I said that they have not solved unemployment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, they have not solved all the problems. They have not solved them any more in England than in countries as distant and as different in their characteristics as the United States and Russia—[Interruption]—and Russia. At any rate, one may say that they have become an absolutely vital and integral part of British social life and that there will never be a Government in this country which will uproot, eliminate, or destroy this organism which was then brought into being. For myself I would say that this effort which we are making now is at least an effort of sincerity. I do not wish for a moment to exaggerate its results, and I do not claim for it at all what the hon. Gentleman and his friends are so often ready to claim for their own proposals—that it will be a cure-all and immediately remedy the immense disparities and causes of discontent in our modern civilisation. All I can say is that this is a sincere effort, and the hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him and behind him will make a great mistake if they imagine that it is in their party interests to set themselves precipitately against a careful study of this project.
I am called upon at the end of this long Debate to deal with the salient points which have emerged. It has been a Debate in which the attendance has not been large, but in which the quality of the speeches has been extremely well maintained. Let us just see what these salient points are, not only in the course of this discussion, but since the Budget was opened and the general policy announced. First of all, I think I may say that to-night a certain number of false assumptions and wrong-headed opinions have been definitely swept out of the path of our future discussions. There is the contention that this policy gives more relief to the flourishing industries than it gives to the depressed industries. That has been placed on the Order Paper of the House on the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)—the highest combination of fire and judgment that you can possibly
imagine. They have committed themselves to that proposition, and, as a result of this discussion, I venture to say that it has been entirely destroyed. The exact reverse is the truth.
I was looking to-night at some figures which have been brought under my notice and I find, for instance, that the great firm of Courtaulds made last year £4,500,000 of profit for their shareholders. They paid only £45,000 in rates. You find in the iron and steel and engineering trades between 400 and 500 concerns making together a similar volume of profits. These 400 or 500 firms taken together, although they make no more in profits than the firm of Courtauld, pay 20 times the rates which are paid by Courtauld's, and under our scheme they will obtain 20 times the relief. Cases like that can be multiplied to any extent you like. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about assisting Courtaulds, then?"] What is the use of suggesting that the whole of this scheme should be held up because under the application of a common principle there is one particular firm that does not need it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am quite prepared to face all the taunts that you may make about particular firms which are in a good position which will gain some advantage out of this scheme. I am prepared to face that rather than depart from the general principle which we are applying to the whole of industry, because the moment you allow yourself to be guided by spite and envy you get into difficulties.
The second suggestion, I think, that has been demolished is the a "pick and choose" plan. It is admitted that it cannot be carried out. You cannot pick and choose between the different industries of the country, between the prosperous and the unprosperous. If you are to apply your principle, you must apply it with uniformity. The third suggestion which has been demolished in these Debates has been the suggestion that you should spread your relief, such as it is—little enough we have to give, and hard enough to get it—over the whole area of shops and houses. Obviously, if you spread £26,000,000 over the whole of the rateable area and over all forms of rateable property the relief you would give to any one firm and to productive industry as a whole would be inappreciable,
and would not have any noticeable effect in altering the course of events or give any real stimulus to our productive industry. If, on the other hand, you were to try to offer three-quarters relief all over the whole area of the rates, the cost would be prohibitive to the central Government, amounting to £130,000,000. What would happen to local government if they were all to be pensioners of the central Exchequer and their ratepayers were to decide on the expenditure of money in the provision of which they would have no further concern?
Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) challenged the distinction which we have drawn between the productive and the distributive industries. He said that production and distribution are like a pair of scissors, but it is not true. It is quite true that they work together, but very great distinctions can be drawn between production and distribution and I shall try to draw one or two of those distinctions. In the first place, production in this country faces on the whole worldwide competition, whereas distribution has closed markets. Of course, there is great competition between distributors within those closed markets, but foreigners do not come into this country to run railways or fleets of motor cars and so forth. I say that is a distinction. Here is another difference between the two. The basic productive industries are flagging and failing, and flagging and failing in an alarming degree, and on the other hand the distributive industries as a whole are doing quite well. [Interruption.] I can hardly call the export trade distribution. The distributive industries have done very well since the War and are holding their own. But supposing you were to apply this present scheme of ours to the distributive industry, how would it work out?
I have explained, and I trust proved, that in regard to the productive industries the vast bulk of the relief will go to the depressed trades. I think that the reverse would happen in the distributive trades. The pressures under which the distributors are working are quite different from those under which the producers are working. The producer seeks places where rates are lowest, but the distributor does not mind how high
the rates are, because he can pass it on to the consumer. Whoever heard of a shopkeeper leaving a town because the rates were high? Whoever heard of a suggestion that Mr. Selfridge should leave Oxford Street because of the burden of rates there, and go out and set up an establishment in open fields in Hendon or Edgware? The best place for a great emporium to set up is in the town even though rates may be high there, whereas in the producing trade some of the concerns simply cannot carry on unless they find relief from their present rates burden. I have no doubt whatever that the distinction that has been drawn aid which I drew in opening the Budget between the productive and the distributive trades is one which the more searchingly it is examined the more true and unshakeable it will be found. So I say that in all these respects we may claim that the result of this discussion up to the present moment has left the Government position absolutely unshaken. [Interruption]. Who is now suggesting that you should pick and choose? Who is now disputing that more relief goes to the depressed than to the flourishing industries? Who is now really maintaining that we should spread this £26,000,000 widely—bread and scrape—over the whole country?
There are some points which have not yet been disputed. One is that there ought to be on the whole a fairer balance as between the competition of road and rail. We believe that the railways have not had entirely fair play against road competition, heavily subsidised as the latter has been by reason of the inadequate share which it has paid in respect of the damage to roads. That we have heard nothing about. Then there is the question of coal versus oil. That is an issue which certainly requires a great deal of thought, because if we could by any means produce from our own coalfields a modern fuel either liquid or pulverised, it would give to basic industries in the twentieth century something of the great advantage they had enjoyed during the whole of the nineteenth century. I have not heard a word about that.
Then there is the question of wider areas for local government. There may be local and parochial disputes about that but, in principle, one knows that there are real advantages in the field of
local government to be gained by wider areas. And lastly, there is the question that some relief should be given to necessitous areas in a form which would achieve a broader equalisation of rates. I say that there are four points which we have completely demolished and four other points, salient points, in this scheme which have not been in any way disputed. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley yesterday made a most extraordinary assertion and one which his party ever since he uttered it have been occupied in trying to whittle away. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a sort of friendly covering apology for it in the course of his speech this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley said: "Rates, as such, are no burden on industry." I might say disease as such is no burden on anybody. It is all a question of the incidence. It is one of the most extraordinarily unwary statements that has ever fallen from the lips of an experienced politician. He also indicated that they were infinitesimal in their burden on industry—as such, no doubt. If you take a pair of opera glasses and look at an object in the ordinary way and then turn them round so that the object is diminished, you will get exactly the mental process through which the right hon. Gentleman has gone. [An HON. MEMBER: "As such!"] Yes, as such.
Before this scheme was broached we were told that rate relief was the most vital thing for the country. I will not read all the statements which were made—Liberal and Labour statements—but as soon as the Government introduces a proposal the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and says, "What is this for? What is the good of all this?" [An HON. MEMBER: "As such!"] As such. Of course, it is rather discouraging in a way. In the discussions since the Budget was introduced no one has hitherto attempted to prove that the boon to industry will not be substantial. But now the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself to denying that proposition. I am going to give a few instances in order to show how grave is the need of industry and how important will be the relief it will get. A few days ago I gave a list to the House of the industries which could beyond chal-
lenge be called depressed, and I mentioned seven conditions which should be fulfilled.
These industries constitute two-thirds of our export trade; some £500,000,000 of exports are accounted for by these industries, and they obtain three-quarters of the whole of the relief which we give to industry. That is, industries covering two-thirds of the export trade of this country receive three-quarters of the whole relief to industry. No one can doubt that that is going to be a great help to our export trade, and no one can doubt the way in which it will help the export trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] It will help it by increasing its competitive power in every market into which our goods enter. We cannot pass the rates on to the foreign consumer. 1he export market is outside our control. Our trade has to go into the markets of the world and enter into-competition with other countries, and everyone knows that contracts very often turn on the smallest fraction. I believe, indeed it is impossible to doubt, that the concentrated effect of £14,500,000 per annum in relief to this group of industries, which covers two-thirds of our export trade, will make an appreciable difference in our competitive power. After all, we are a crowded island and have to buy four-fifths of our bread from abroad, and the easing of the burden on our export trades by a strong and concentrated thrust of this character is not a matter which anyone can afford to sweep aside as a negligible thing in our economic life.
The hon. Member who spoke last asked, "What is the good of all this? What about coal?" I do not pretend that it will solve the problem of coal but, at any rate, it will be a help. I am not pretending to solve the whole problem, but I would point this out. The right hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) spoke of this relief to coal as being worth 3d. per ton. That is not so. Our calculation is that, with the railway freight relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Why should you not count that as well? It is worth 6½d. per ton on the average over the coal trade.

Mr. SHINWELL rose. [Interruption.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hon. Members will not be sorry if it is so. Is that no help?

Mr. SHINWELL: You cannot ride off like that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I may be allowed to continue my argument. [Interruption.] It really is not a proper way of carrying on a Debate in a representative House like this.

Mr. SHINWELL rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I be permitted to resume my argument? I am in possession of the House, and I hope that I shall be allowed to proceed.

Mr. SHINWELL: You ought to give way.

HON. MEMBERS: Name, name!

Mr. BATEY: Tell us about coal.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I may be permitted to go on with my argument. The hon. Member has no right to call upon me to sit down while I am in possession of the House. Are hon. Members opposite really so uncomfortable about this policy that they are going to silence a speaker by interruptions of this kind? I do not mind in the least, and I will gladly answer any questions when the proper opportunity arrives. I was trying to say that the relief given to coal by this Measure amounted to 6id. per ton averaged over the whole field. The burden of the mining royalties is estimated on the average to be about 6½d. It is the first time I have ever heard from any representative of the party opposite that the mining royalties are not an incubus and a burden on the coal industry. I have heard speech after speech in Debates for the last 20 years showing what a relief and help it would be if the mining royalties were lifted from the back of the coal industry. But nobody has ever proposed to lift these royalties from the back of the coal industry. All that they have suggested is that the Exchequer should buy out the royalty owners and should collect the royalties itself. That would be no help at all to the mining industry. Here we are giving something which it is admitted affords a benefit to the mining industry as a whole, in which both parties, employers and employed, share under the wage-sharing agreement; we are giving relief to that industry as
a whole as great as if we had completely eliminated mining royalties. The state of the coal trade at the present time shows, under the most recent ascertainments, in every single district throughout the country an actual loss, and yet we are extracting £3,500,000 a year from this trade in respect of rates. How long can that go on in regard to the weaker pits?

An HON. MEMBER: As long as you are in office.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will go on until the steps which we are now taking become effective. I now turn to the firms and industries included in the list which I gave to the House on Tuesday last, and which I classified—I admit roughly—as depressed, or at any rate as not flourishing. Of the firms that are in this list I have extracted from the table a very large number which are either making no profits at all, or are making actual losses, or are making less profits than the rates which they pay. Simply from these trades—Iron, Steel, Shipbuilding and Engineering; Metals; Cotton; Wool; Bleaching and Dyeing—simply from those five groups of trades there are firms which pay £75,000,000 in wages and salaries, and which are providing a livelihood for at least 500,000 or 600,000 persons—firms every one of which is either running at a loss or is making less profits than it pays in rates. Therefore, you may say that over the whole of this vast area—and, mark you, there is not one of us on either side of the House who has not got some of these firms in his own constituency—over the whole of this vast area you have got businesses which are gradually aoproaching the moment when, after having paid rates out of capital for a number of bleak years, they will find that they are becoming exhausted and that they will have to close down. Is that not a matter which is of great consequence to industry? Is that not a matter which is of great consequence to this country? Is the fact that there are 600,000 people living on firms which are actually waterlogged not a matter of deep and earnest concern? How are our trade union leaders to get any sort of strong pressure for lifting the level of wages? [Interruption.] I say that there are 1,100,000 unemployed at the present time,
and if nothing is done you may have the prospect of another 200,000 or 300,000 being added to them.
You may say that our scheme is wrong, but, believe me, it is not a scheme which you can afford to treat with derision here or on any platform. I say that it is of consequence to all those who care about the workers. It is said that our scheme is of no assistance to the shopkeepers, but is the potential closing down of these firms all over the place of no consequence to the small shopkeepers who serve the people who work in these firms; small shopkeepers whose credit has perhaps been strained to the limit by the disastrous consequences of the industrial civil war of 1926? To say that those shopkeepers are not included in this scheme is beside the point. I say that they have no greater interest than that these firms which are now so hard pressed and in regard to whose position the burden of rates may well be the determining factor, should be enabled to continue to keep their doors open and employ their men. Having said that in answer to the statement and suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman for Colne Valley that rates as such are no burden on industry, I have a suggestion to make to him that, dating from to-morrow, he should begin a pilgrimage about the country. I suggest that he should go to Newcastle and to Sheffield [HON. MEMBERS: "Dundee"]. I suggest that he should go to Dundee—[Interruption]. I suggest that he should go to the rural areas and that he should say to the workmen and to the people who are managing the actual businesses by which they live, that he should say to the farmer—[HON. MEMBERS: "To the brewer"]—"Rates as such are no burden on industry." I cannot think of any better way in which the right hon. Gentleman could employ the next twelve months.
But I leave the right hon. Gentleman, and, if the House will bear with me for a few minutes more, I would rather not sit down without paying my respectful tribute to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I administered, I trust with due respect, all things considered, a mild Parliamentary castigation to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday last.
I did it for his own good, and in the brief process of time which has elapsed I see that it has had a very salutary effect, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke in a most chastened mood to-day and he conducted a series of retirements, under cover of the heavy fire of his oratorical artillery, from a good many indefensible positions. We have no longer the assertion from him which figured on the Order Paper a little while ago about the flourishing industries getting more than the depressed industries. He has abandoned the idea of our having to choose between the flourishing and the depressed firms.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly understood he had. Well, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman requires another dose. He even went so far as to say that he would give even-handed treatment to the brewers in the scheme which the Liberal party would bring into play—that he would draw no distinction between brewers and any other class. That is very important, but it certainly is not in harmony with the kind of thing which the right hon. Gentleman has been saying on public platforms and elsewhere. He even referred to Mr. Courtauld who is described as "the rich Mr. Courtauld," and "the man who never asks for anything" and so forth.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: indicated dissent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, it was not so much what the right hon. Gentleman said as the nasty way he said it. However I note the improvement and it will encourage me on future occasions to continue the treatment as far as may be necessary. There is one matter on which I should like to offer an explanation to the right hon. Gentleman. He evidently was rather annoyed at my reference to the Election of 1918. I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had anything to reproach himself with over the coupon Election of 1918. Anyhow I am not going to reproach him nor are the great bulk of those who sit on this bench. We were all in it. The great majority of those who sit on this bench followed him and the late Mr. Bonar Law in that Election, and responded to his appeal to make a common front against the common foe. It was not, in
any way, a discreditable transaction. On the contrary I approved of it then and I approve of it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "And would do it again!"] Yes, I would do it again. I must say, however, to be quite frank, that I have not been quite tactful or considerate in not remembering sufficiently how much the personal and political position of the right hon. Gentleman has changed since that date.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And your own.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, on the contrary, mine has not changed at all. The right hon. Gentleman from time to time still speaks of the common front against the comman foe but it is a different common front and the opposite common foe. I had not sufficiently paid attention to this alteration in his views and in his attitude, and, therefore, I must express regret if by any tactlessness I have caused him some embarrassment towards the friends with whom he is once again happily reunited. Passing from that point let me deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said. His speech consisted of two parts, namely, a complaint and a plan. So far as the complaint was concerned, it related entirely to a Bill which His Majesty's Government have undertaken to introduce in November next. All his criticisms referred to that Bill. I think when we are advancing a policy of such great complexity, admittedly open to argument on every point, we are entitled to unfold our plan stage by stage. There is nothing in what is now before the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Little things please little minds. There is nothing in the policy which is now before the House which is not complete in itself. We are providing in the Budget for the money. We are providing in this Bill for the division between the classes of property to he relieved and those not to be relieved. In the autumn we propose to lay before Parliament in legislative form our Measure for the reimbursement of the local authorities. We are not going to be hurried one inch In the unfolding of our necessary plan and, let me say, that the profound ignorance and lack of comprehension displayed by all the most learned and intelligent of the Liberal party—I say nothing of the other party opposite—in regard to that portion of
the scheme already before them, should alone prevent us from overloading their consciousness at the present time.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Liberal scheme, which as far as I can make out takes the form of making the relief of the able-bodied poor a national charge on the Exchequer. You could hardly have a more vicious plan. You weaken the responsibility of the local authorities, to whom, nevertheless, you must entrust the business of administration. Yon afford no effective control to the Exchequer which has to pay the Bill. You overburden the already congested business of the national Parliament with continuous disputes about the difficult question of unemployment benefit. Just on the morrow of the House of Commons having decided to free itself, to a large extent, from a vast burden of un-covenanted benefit, you reimport that system into the very centre of our political affairs, and I am assured that if the policy which is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in the Yellow Book, and to which he has affirmed his allegiance to-day, were brought into play inequalities of a serious character would arise. For instance, if you put the relief of the able-bodied poor on to the Exchequer here are some of the effects which, I am assured, would be felt by industry in different cities. Industry in Sheffield would get a relief of one-seventh of its rates; in Newcastle, of one-sixth of the rates; in Middlesbrough, of one-tenth; in Merthyr, of one-fourteenth; in Bolton, of one-thirty-secondth; in Birmingham, of one-thirty-sixth. Those are the reliefs which would be given to industry as a result of the operation of this part, at any rate, of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. How does that compare, as far as giving a stimulus to industry is concerned, with our plan of giving three-fourths.
Now, Sir, of course we appealed for and invited co-operation in this policy, but I must quite frankly say that I never expected to get it. I was quite sure that we should have to fight every inch of our road, and I think we must be prepared to do so. There are, of course, anomalies and hard cases which could be brought up to baffle the policy of legislation, to darken counsel, and to create prejudice and unpopularity, but I do not believe that an opposition relying only on hard
cases and anomalies and inconsistencies can really hold its own against the advance of a concerted and symmetrical scheme. As to all that will be necessary to carry this scheme through, I assign no limits at the present moment to the efforts which will be necessary, but, at any rate, you may be quite sure that both in the relief of productive industry and in the handling of this large rating question, we shall make a good job of what we have set out to do. There will be hard cases, but there is no need really for us to be afraid of that. After all, we are only striking off shackles. The great triumphs and successes of Liberalism in the nineteenth century came from the fact that they were consistently, over several generations, advocating the striking off of shackles on enterprise, trade, and the social life of the country. What we are doing now is to strike the economic shackle of rates from the industries and agriculture of the country, and you cannot tell exactly how, or exactly when, or exactly in what form the benefit will inure, but that everything will be better, somewhat better and somewhat easier, as the result of this removal of a great adverse factor in the efficiency of our production, no one can doubt. When you embark on a course of restriction or repression, caution and hesitancy should rightly impose themselves upon you but when you are embarked upon a course of relief and liberation, advance with courage.

Mr. SHINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to invite me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—to put to him a question that I endeavoured to submit in the course of his speech. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I can only wish—[Interruption]—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. SHINWELL: I can only wish that the courtesy advanced by the right hon. Gentleman to myself in his invitation were characteristic of the opposite benches. I desire to put to him now questions—in my judgment, pertinent and legitimate questions—that were not put to him in the course of the Debate, and I invite him now to enlighten the
House as to the measure of relief that he claims will be afforded to the coal industry of this country when the provisions embodied in this Measure are applied. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] But since hon. Members opposite appear to be more anxious to suppress Members on these benches in the expression of their views, I propose to say a few words on the general subject now before the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that we are to be fobbed off by an exposition of brilliant dialectic, such as we have had this evening? If the right hon. Gentleman had given us less raillery and more realism, there would have been less need for interruption, and possibly a greater measure of agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] We on these benches are not opposed to the provision of relief for British industry, but we are entitled to demand that, in its direction, efficiency should be promoted, and we have had no guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Minister of Health in that respect. Are we to throw away something like £30,000,000 of public money without guarantees of any sort?
We are told by the Minister of Health that these proposals could not be regarded as a subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] What does the right hon. Gentleman understand a subsidy to be? If we take £30,000,000 of public money and give it directly to British industry that is a subsidy, but, if we remove some of the burdens now imposed upon British industry, and thrust them upon the shoulders of the taxpayer, it is just as much a subsidy as if the amount had been paid in a direct form. Therefore, why conceal the fact that a subsidy is embodied in these proposals? This proposal is in direct succession to the subsidies for which the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches have been responsible in the past, but we are entitled, when such a subsidy is proposed, to ascertain whether that subsidy is to be wisely used—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order, Sir, I want to ask you if, when someone on the Front Government Bench is making a speech in future, and he is being treated as my hon. Friend is being treated, you will sit still and allow it, or will you insist on order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I wish the hon. Gentleman and his friends would help me a little more. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not given as good a hearing as I should have liked.

Mr. SHINWELL: I want assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that the provision of this subsidy shall be accompanied by guarantees satisfactory to both the consumers in this country and the wage-earners. The right hon. Gentleman said that, while it was true that the amount of relief to be furnished to the mining industry amounted to 3d. per ton, there was an additional 3d. which arose from the reduction in railway freights. There was to be 6d. in all. Does he imagine that the additional advantage arising from the reduction in railway freights will amount to 3d. a ton in respect of our export trade in coal?

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. STEPHEN: This will be the method for the rest of this Parliament.

Mr. SHINWELL: The export counties, such as Durham and Northumberland, and South Wales, are near the seaboard, and the reduction in railway freights there cannot be anything like 3d. per ton. If 3d. per ton is the average, the amount received in respect of the export counties will be something in the nature of 1d. per ton. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he believes that 4d. a ton will be an advantage to the mining industry in the Continental markets? It is not a lower price in the Continental markets we want in order to improve the coal industry; it is a higher price for coal, both inland and for export. I want a greater measure of accuracy from the right hon. Gentleman. Brilliant rhetoric, clever dialectics and raillery at right hon. Gentlemen on these Benches and below the Gangway, while it may be a fine political game, is not satisfactory to the people we represent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I have been returned to this House recently by miners, many of whom have been out of work for the past three years through the disgraceful policy of His Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] There are townships in my constituency where not a single pit is working at the present time, and every single miner is unemployed, and where many of those unemployed miners
are receiving no measure of relief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I say to the right hon. Gentleman, "If you believe this will afford a measure of relief, then give us an assurance that that relief will percolate down to these humble constituents of ours." We are entitled to such an assurance. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there are industrial firms who are to be provided with a measure of relief. I do not propose to enter into a controversy with him as to the proprietry of such a proceeding. We can discuss that on some other occasion. But if it is good enough to provide relief for Messrs. Courtauld, why is it not good enough to provide relief for the impoverished miners in Scotland, Durham and elsewhere throughout the mining areas?

HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We can play this game.

Mr. SHINWELL: The Minister for Health—

Mr. STEPHEN: If this had come from the Labour Benches, notice would have been taken of it.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SHINWELL: We have been told that the relief of the miners of South Wales is a matter for private charity, and the Mansion House Fund was instituted, out of which relief was to be afforded to the miners, while Messrs Courtauld, the anthracite groups in South Wales, and brewery concerns are to get relief under this Measure. I want to protest with the strength at my command against this Measure, and I am doing so in a House which I know is unsympathetic. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] I care for the people outside. I protest, not so much against the characteristic attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as against the deplorable attitude adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One might be vastly amused by the right hon. Gentleman's perambulations and dialectics if it were not for the deplorable plight of the people outside. We are entitled to expect something more Alan clowning from a responsible Minister. What does it matter to the workers outside if the Chancellor of the Exchequer points to the defects of
his former associate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, because they are of a sort in our judgment. We are concerned with realities and not with mere rhetoric. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Hon. Members opposite may shout "Divide," but do they imagine that we are at this time of night to be intimidated and bullied by party cries which I admit are quite natural under the circumstances. It is not my personal wish to detain the House, but it is essential within the Rules of Order, and, while I should be the last to transgress the Rules so far as you, Mr. Speaker, are personally concerned, I should be the last to allow myself to be intimidated by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches, and the sooner they recognise that the better for themselves.
Lastly, we shall have the opportunity, in the Committee stage of this Bill, to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on the realities of the provisions embodied in it. I want to tell him that I yield to no one in the desire for relief for British industry, and I believe that I can

see an element of satisfaction in the Measure that he has propounded; but we are not blinded, either by the ineffectiveness of the Measure, by its difficulties or by its undoubted weaknesses, and, when we point to these difficulties, we are entitled to the courtesy that one expects from reputed statesmen on Measures of this sort. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has not treated the House with the courtesy to which it is entitled, and has not even treated this Measure with the courtesy to which it is entitled. If it is an important Measure, it, should be treated in an important way, and not in a stupid fashion. I content myself with that, and shall ask for information at a later stage.

Mr. J. JONES rose—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 140.

Division No. 154.]
AYES.
[10.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Burman, J. B
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dixey, A. C.


Apsley, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Drewe, C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Cassels, J. D.
Ellis, R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Balniel, Lord
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Barnett Major Sir Richard
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fielden, E. E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Christie, J. A.
Finburgh, S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fraser, Captain Ian


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bennett, A. J
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Ganzoni, Sir John


Berry, sir George
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Gates, Percy


Birchair, Major J. Dearman
Colman, N. C. D.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cope, Major Sir William
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.
Goft, Sir Park


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grace, John


Brass, Captain W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Buchan, John
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, Bt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bullock, Captain M.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Hamilton, Sir George
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Hammersley, S. S.
MacIntyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Hanbury, C.
McLean, Major A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandan, Lord


Harrison, G. J. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hartington, Marquess of
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Malone, Major P. B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Haslam, Henry C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's univ., Belfst)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Meller, R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mayer, Sir Frank
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Smithers, Waldron


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hills, Major John Waller
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Templeton, W. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Oakley, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurd, Percy A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, Rt. Hon. sir W. Mitchell-


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Parkins, Colonel E. K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Perring, Sir William George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Jephcott, A. R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stake New'gton)
Philipson, Mabel
Waddington, R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pilcher, G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston on-Hull)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Preston, William
Wells, S. R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ramsden, E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Remer, J. R.
Wolmer, viscount


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Womersley, W. J.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Richardson, Sir P W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Loder, J. de V.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lougher, Lewis
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ropner, Major L.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon.SIr Hilton (Norwich)


Lumley, L. R.
Rye, F. G.



Lynn, Sir R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Margesson and Captain




Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Greenall, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Baker, Walter
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Barr, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Day, Harry
Hardie, George D.


Briant, Frank
Dennison, R
Harney, E. A.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Bromfield, William
Dunnico, H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bromley, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fenby, T. D.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, G. H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)




Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G.
Stamford, T. W.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strauss, E. A.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Sutton, J. E.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Purcell, A. A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Townend, A. E.


Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Lansbury, George
Rose, Frank H.
Varley, Frank B.


Lawrence, Susan
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lawson, John James
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lee, F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wellock, Wilfred


Lindley, F. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Lowth, T.
Scurr, John
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Sexton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


MacLaren, Andrew
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wright, W.


March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Montague, Frederick
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



Morris, R. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.


Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry

Question put, accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 140.

Division No. 155.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butt, Sir Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Ellis, R. G.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Apsley, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fermoy, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Fielden, E. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Finburgh, S.


Balniel, Lord
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forrest, W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bernett, Major Sir Richard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gates, Percy


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Colman, N. C. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Barry, Sir George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gower, Sir Robert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cope, Major Sir William
Grace, John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Couper, J. B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. w.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Briggs, J. Harold
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bochan, John
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hanbury, C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bullock, Captain M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harrison, G. J. C.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hartington, Marquess of


Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Drewe, C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Malone, Major P. S.
Sandon, Lord


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Margesson, Captain D.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Meller, R. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hills, Major John Waller
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Shepperson, E. W.


Hilton, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Milne, J. S. wardlaw-
Skelton, A. N.


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smithers, Waldron


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hopkinson, sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Storry-Deans, R.


Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Naville, Sir Reginald J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nicholson, D. (Westminster)
Styles, Captain H. W.


Hunter-Waston, Lt.-Gen. sir Aylmer
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hurd, Percy A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hurst, Gerald B.
Oakley, T.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Templeton, W. P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Penny, Frederick George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Jones, sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Perring, Sir William George
Tinne, J. A.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Philipson, Mabel
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pilcher, G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pilditch, sir Philip
Waddington, R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Proston, William
Ward. Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Raine, Sir Walter
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ramsden, E.
Wells, S. R.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Loder, J. de V.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, Lewis
Rice, Sir Frederick
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Luce, Maj.-Gen Sir Richard Harman
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wolmer, Viscount


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Womersley, W. J.


Lynn, sir R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacAndrsw, Major Charles Glen
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rye, F, G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


MacIntyre, Ian
Salmon, Major I.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Macquisten, F. A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Major Sir George Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cove, W. G.
Harney, E. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harris, Percy A.


Ammon, Charles George
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Baker, Walter
Day, Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery).
Dennison, R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barr, J.
Duncan, C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Fenby, T. D.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Briant, Frank
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Broad, F. A.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenall, T.
Kelly, W. T.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenwortny, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kirkwood, D.


Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.
Lansbury, George


Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawrence, Susan


Connolly, M.
Hardie, George D.
Lawson, John James




Leo, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.


Lindley, F. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Lowth, T.
Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lunn, William
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Thurtle, Ernest


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Tinker, John Joseph


MacLaren, Andrew
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Scrymgeour, E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Scurr, John
Varley, Frank B.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


March, S.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


Morris, R. H.
Shinwell, E.
Westwood, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Naylor, T. E.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Whlteley, W.


Oliver, George Harold
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Owen, Major G.
Slesser, Sir Henry H
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rothernhithe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Paling, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wright, W.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stamford, T. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Potts, John S.
Stephen, Campbell



Purcell, A. A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strauss, E. A.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.


Ritson, J.
Sullivan, Joseph



Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the execution of any Act of the present Session to make provision, with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments, for the distinction in valuation lists of the classes of hereditaments to be affected, and the apportionment in valuation lists of the net annual values of such hereditaments according to the extent of the user thereof for various purposes—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir Kingsley Woo.]

Mr. E. BROWN: Before this Resolution goes through I think we are entitled to a statement as to what inquiries are to be undertaken by the Inland Revenue, who I understand are being voted £150,000. The House is at least entitled to the courtesy of an explanation from the Financial Secretary as to the purpose for which these officers are required and the functions they are to undertake.

Mr. J. JONES: I do not claim to be an expert on finance, but we on these benches have never yet had any explana-
tion from those responsible for this Bill of the machinery which is to be employed in its operation. We are going to vote, blindly, £150,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I may be intellectually blind, but some hon. Members opposite seem to be physically blind. This £150,000 is to be voted for the creation of a new staff, who may be temporarily employed, for the purpose of discovering the real value of the properties which are likely to be benefited by this Bill. What has become of the cry about Mr. Dilly and Mr. Dally, about the manufacture of new civil servants, too many officials being on the back of the public? When it is a matter of relieving the landlords it does not matter how many officials you have. The more officials, the more relief. I come from a constituency fairly heavily burdened with rates. They are 24s. in the £, and in spite of that some of our industries are doing remarkably well.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Resolution. It only authorises Parliament to provide the money for the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. JONES: I was giving that as an illustration. We are going to find money for officials who are to estimate the value of the property which these firms possess. An absolutely unnecessary procedure. It is throwing money away; paying officials for finding out what is already well known. These people are going to get the benefit of public money at both ends; in relief of rates to the extent of 75 per cent. of their rateable value, and in the shape of officials to enable them to dis-
cover how they can escape their responsibility. I know that I am barred from speaking on the general question. I have been here all this afternoon listening to the Debate. I know some hon. Members who come here once a week, and as soon as they get into the Chamber they are on their legs speaking. Then they walk out, and we do not see them for another week. Some of us sit here for hours listening to the Debate, and when we speak we are looked upon with a certain amount of contempt by the intellectual geniuses on the other side of the House. We have had a marvellous demonstration this afternoon of intellectual acrobatics.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There again that question does not arise on this Resolution.

Mr. JONES: I was only trying to illustrate how public money can be spent for nothing. The OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will be full of that speech, 75 per cent. of which was like the flowers which bloom in the spring; it had nothing to do with the case. We are asked to vote a large sum, and we are supposed to be the custodians of the public purse. We are asked to vote a large sum for officials to relieve people who do not want relief. We are not told who those officials are to be, what qualifications they are to have, what examinations they have to pass. No doubt, they will be people who wear Oxford bags, who speak with an accent, and who ask questions which the ordinary workman will be unable to understand. The people who are to get relief are those who have been living on the backs of the workers all the time. They do not employ men for love, but for profit. If they could discover an animal to-morrow—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would again remind the hon. Member that that does not arise on the Resolution.

Mr. JONES: While you are finding employment for some men you are to put other men out of work. We do not know how many officials are to be employed. One of the reasons they are to be appointed is to find more work for the industrial worker in our depressed industries. There is not an hon. Member of this House who can show me where a man will be put into work in consequence of this resolution except those officials.
No industrial worker will get any benefit from it. I was just saying, when the Deputy Chairman called me up, that, if they could find an animal which was covered all over with hair so that it needed no clothing, and which had such digestive organs that it did not need food, they would employ no workmen at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Resolution.

Mr. JONES: In conclusion, I would say that I protest most emphatically against this machinery being provided to help those who do not want help. It would be far better to devise machinery to help those who need it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would have risen to explain the purpose of this Resolution, but for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health dealt with the matter at some length in his speech in moving the Second Reading. The necessity for this Resolution is occasioned by the association of the revenue officers with the rating authorities in two functions arising out of the Bill—first in the classification of properties and secondly, in the apportionment of values in the valuation lists which will be in force on 1st October, 1929. The expenses to be incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in this connection are to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament and therefore a Financial Resolution is necessary. The details of the proposal are contained in the Schedule to the Bill and if hon. Members refer to it they will see that it will be the duty of the revenue officer to get from the rating authority a preliminary list in which are included all the hereditaments in respect of which claims have been received, and in respect of which they have arrived at certain provisional conclusions. The rating authority will then consider the matter and come to a conclusion. The matter will then be considered by the revenue officer who has received the form of claim and he will then come to his own conclusion as to the inclusion or exclusion of certain hereditaments from the list and also as to whether any value entered therein is excessive or not. I emphasise that part of
the provision because it differs fundamentally from the original proposal which was made in connection with the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 and very largely limits the duties and the powers of the revenue officers. I do not think there is any necessity to emphasise the desirability of associating the revenue officers with this proposal, and I suggest that it is vital in the interests of the Exchequer—

Mr. MacLAREN: On a point of Order. Is it quite in order, in the absence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for this statement to be made by another Minister?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No point of order arises.

Sir K. WOOD: I would be very glad to give way to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but, unfortunately, this is a duty which devolves upon the Parliamentary Secretary. I was about to conclude by saying that as the Treasury will have to make good the remission contemplated in the scheme, the safeguard of the presence of revenue officers is, of course, needed. I wish to repeat what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, that the revenue officer does not become a permanent part of the machinery of assessment of local rates. He will only be there until 1st October, 1929. This proposal has received little or no criticism during the discussion. On the other hand hon. Members have rather assented to the necessity for the interposition of the revenue officer, and in view of all these circumstances, I hope the Committee will see their way to grant the Resolution.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: I rise to seek an assurance that the Government, in dealing with this matter, will have regard to the change in policy which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech of last year. On 11th April last year the right hon. Gentleman announced that in future Schedule A collections would be made on one date and in one sum instead of in two separate collections. I understand that the effect of that change in policy has been to decrease the amount of work performed by local Income Tax collectors by between 40 and 50 per cent., and I
want to ask the Government to give an assurance that they will not engage temporary assistants to perform Inland Revenue work while these Income Tax collectors are admittedly performing so much less work than they were prior to the alteration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget of last year. There seems to be less occasion for the engagement of temporary staff than the Government appear to think, and I call their attention to this point because I think it is a matter well worth their earnest consideration.

Mr. HARRIS: I want to protest against this expenditure of public money on the appointment of extra officials while the local authorities have highly trained officials who understand the work of valuation, have given years to it, and naturally have acquired and accumulated knowledge and experience. As I understand it, special officers cot so qualified are to be appointed at the expense of the National Exchequer in order to protect the Revenue from under-valuation, but temporary officers in a difficult work like valuation cannot be competent to do what requires special training and long experience. I think this is a real waste of public money. I can understand the importance of some check on local authorities, but it seems to me that a more clumsy, extravagant, unsatisfactory and inefficient way could not have been devised. I think we, in this Committee, the guardians of the public purse, ought to hesitate before granting this large sum of money for more officials.
Three or four years ago there was a real outcry against the multiplication of officials, and I remember the phrase at elections, in big headlines: "Sack the lot!" I believe the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. O. Nicholson) got in mainly because he was pledged to sack the lot, and I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Sir R. Hall) was net also an exponent of that policy.

Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: I must correct the hon. Member. I did not say that.

Mr. HARRIS: Apparently he is in favour of increasing the number of officials.

Sir R. HALL: That is equally unfair.

Mr. HARRIS: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will explain his policy later, but I hope he will support me in the Lobby in keeping down the number of officials. Where it can be shown that money is going to be expended well and for the public benefit, I am in favour of it, but in this case we have throughout the country a highly trained, competent body of men, who know the job of valuation, and the Government are going to appoint a host of extra officials, not qualified or trained or possessed of the necessary local knowledge. I see the right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) sitting in his place. He claims to be a protector of the public purse, and I hope he will be prepared to support me in this protest against a flagrant case of duplication of officials.

Mr. GILLETT: I do not understand why the Parliamentary Secretary should be surprised that we are raising this question at this stage and not on the Second Rending.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I expressed no such surprise.

Mr. GILLETT: Then I apologise. There are one or two questions I should like to ask him. Am I right in understanding that the provision of these officials is to be made only for the first year, and that after that date the valuations of the local bodies will be accepted without any investigations by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

Mr. GILLETT: Is there any idea of what money will be required; and can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea whether £100,000 or £200,000 or £500,000 will be required for the payment of these officials? The third point I should like to put is this. It seems to me that one of the most difficult questions is not simply that of the officials going in and satisfying themselves as to the valuations where you can have a case that is perfectly clear, but there will be an enormous number of border-line cases. I can imagine that the constituency I represent will afford the right hon. Gentleman a very large number of difficult cases as to whether a special industry is entitled to exemption or not. This will be the case with small in-
dustries, where a man is carrying on a retail industry with a small personal manufacturing industry. What arrangements are going to be made, so that the principles laid down in one place are also going to be applied in another? How is a man who has a small industry, say in Finsbury in London, and who makes application and is told that he is entitled to exemption, to make certain that a similar instance in Birmingham is also to get exemption? How are the Government going to satisfy themselves that, with these border-line cases, one man might not be turned down here, whilst an exactly similar case has been granted in another place?
This seems to be the most difficult question these officials will have to face, and I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have told us how these cases will be dealt with, so that the whole system can work as uniformly as possible. I am not going into the difficulties, which I think are insurmountable, but how does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to get over this difficulty of the law being administered in different ways in different towns?

Mr. HARNEY: I rise to protest against the cursory way in which the Minister has dealt with this matter. We are asked calmly to vote £150,000 for the purpose of paying officials that have become necessary by reason of the Bill that has just been given a Second Reading. We on this side of the House are of the opinion that this addition to the ordinary valuation, namely, separating it into the valuation of agriculture, industry and transport services is entirely unnecessary. However, the Bill has been carried. I understand that this separate valuation is not to be the work of the Inland Revenue at all. It is to be done through the local authorities in the ordinary way, and we are asked to give £150,000 to pay watch-dogs upon the local authorities. That is really what it comes to. I do not think it is courteous to the Committee to ask it blindly to vote a large sum of money not for the purpose of doing the work but merely to see that others do it correctly. I hope the Minister will condescend to explain to us why it is necessary to expend so large a sum.

Sir K. WOOD: I want to assure the hon. and learned Member that I meant no discourtesy to him or the Committee in not developing a longer explanation. I do not think the hon. and learned Member was present when this matter was discussed, otherwise I feel sure he would not have made a suggestion of that kind, because the point he raised has been dealt with at considerable length by my right hon. Friend. I will deal with the points put by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) and by the other two hon. Members. As regards the staff, of course it will necessitate some temporary addition to the staff of the Inland Revenue. It will be of two kinds: Additional temporary clerical assistance will be required, and additional temporary officers with some professional training, who can at least make inspections and ascertain the necessary data, and exercise certain professional skill in estimating and valuing.

Mr. HARRIS: Will they be qualified surveyors?

Sir K. WOOD: I am carefully choosing my words in addressing the Committee, and I think the hon. Gentleman can rely on it that the best assistance which is available will be obtained in this

connection. I certainly will have regard to what the hon. Member for East Bristol has said in that connection. I know that he will not expect me to give him a definite undertaking, but I will see that what he has said is conveyed to the officials of the Inland Revenue. With regard to the points put by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), these officials will be required for the first valuation only, and the sum of money which is involved in this Resolution is, as indicated in the memorandum of the Bill, £150,000. On the more important point he raised, as to how to get a certain similarity of decisions in practice up and down the country, of course that does not arise on this Resolution so far as the action of the assessment committees are concerned, but so far as concerns the revenue officers they will, of course, be acting under the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and therefore, I hope, there will be uniformity of practice so far as their decisions are concerned. I hope that with these explanations the Committee will now see their way to let us have this Resolution.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes. 103.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Drewe, C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Butt, sir Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Carver, Major W. H.
Ellis, R. G.


Apsley, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fielden, E. B.


Balniel, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Forrest, W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Christie, J. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gates, Percy


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Colman, N. C. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Briggs, J. Harold
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Buchan, John
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hamilton, Sir George


Bullock, Captain M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hammersley, S. S.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hanbury, c.


Burman, J. B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Hartington, Marquess of
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K,
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Meller, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W


Haslam, Henry C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Skelton, A. N.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hilton, Cecil
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
styles, Captain H. Walter


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Templeton, W. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Jephcott, A. R.
Pilcher, G.
Tinne, J. A.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Preston, William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Raine, Sir Walter
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ramsden, E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Remer, J. R.
wells, S. R.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Loder, J. de V.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, Lewis
Ropner, Major L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rye, F. G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lumley, L. R
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


MacIntyre, I.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


McLean, Major A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank



Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Major Sir William Cope and Captain




Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Baker, Walter
Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Dennison, R,
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Duncan, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwocd, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Fenby, T. D.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.




Varley, Frank B.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Charles Edwards.


Westwood, J.
Windsor, Walter



Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [27th March] as relates to the Resolution That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, be now considered."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Twelve o'clock.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.